PRINCETON.  N.  J 


Lihrary.^%iSf'^^'4}'^940^:iy  Resented. 

BX  8641    . 06  1871 
One  of  the  people. 
Opinions  concerning  the 
Bible  law  of  marriage 


Number,, 


OPINIONS  CONCERNING 
THE  BIBLE  LAW  OF  MAHRIAGE. 


iii 


OPINIONS 

CONCERNING 

THE  BIBLE  LAW  OF  MARRIAGE. 


BY 

ONE  OF  THE  PEOPLE. 


Elijtih  said  unto  the  people,  —  How  long  halt  ye  between  two  opinionsf 

If  the  LoED  B£  GoD)  follow  Hiu;  If  Baal — follow  him.  —  1  Kings  xviiL  21. 


PHILADELPHIA: 
CLAXTQN,  REMSEN  &  HAFFELFINaER, 

No8.  819  AND  821  Market  Street. 

187L 


Entered,  ftccording  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1870,  by 
CLAXTON,  RKMSEN  A  HAFKELFINGER, 
in  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress  at  Washington. 


STEREOTYPED  D?  }.  PAGA>(  *  60M. 


rniNTED  BV  MOORE  BB08. 


TO  THE  ANGLO-SAXON  PEOPLE 
SPEAKING  THE  ENGLISH  TONGUE, 
THIS    LITTLE   VOLUME    IS  DEDICATED. 

I  MAKE  MY  APPEAL  TO  THESE  AS  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  RIGHTE0U8- 
NESS  OF  OOD'S  LAW  OF  TRUE  MARRIAGE,  — BECAUSE  THEY 
HAVE  SENT  CHRISTIAN  MISSIONARIES  ABROAD  WHO 
HATE  TRANSLATED  THE  HOLY  BIBLE  INTO  THE 
LIVING  LANGUAGES  OF  THE  WORLD;  AND 
THUS  OPENED  THE  WAY  OF  SALVA- 
TION AND  PROGRESS  THROUGH 
KNOWLEDGE  OP  THE  TRUE 
GOD,  AMONG  ALL 
NATIONS. 

PROTESTANT  CHRISTIANITY  IS  THEREFORE  THE  GUARDIAN  0? 

GOD'S  HOLY  BOOK. 
ONE  OF  THE  PEOPLE. 


Tii 


PEEFACE. 


MY  readers  need  not  be  told  that  the  holy  law 
of  marriage,  as  the  Creator  at  the  "  begin- 
ning "  established  it,  has  been  set  aside,  trampled 
upon  and  openly  rejected,  by  a  set  of  persons  styling 
themselves  "  Mormons,  or  Latter  Day  Saints,"  now- 
established  in  a  Territory  of  the  United  States,  and 
who  have  been  seeking  admission  into  the  Union. 

It  is  not  my  intention  to  go  into  the  history  of 
these  Mormons  ;  their  rise,  progress,  characteristics, 
and  religious  creed  may  be  found  in  other  publica- 
tions. My  aim  is  simply  to  examine  one  assertion 
put  forth  by  the  leaders  of  Mormonism  and  acted 
upon  in  their  community,  namely,  "That  the  Bible, 
the  Old  Testament  at  least,  sanctions  polygamy." 

!N"or  is  it  only  this  Mormon  doctrine  that  needs 
examination  and  refutation.  Some  of  the  leading 
Clergymen  in  the  Protestant  orthodox  churches  of 
Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  have  given 
expression  to  opinions  which  seem  to  uphold  the 
idea  that,  so  far  as  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment are  concerned,  polygamy  is  not  sin.  All  the 
points  raised  by  the  opponents  of  Monogamy,  whe- 
ther in  the  Church  or  out  of  it,  to  prove  that  Bible 
authority  sustained,  sanctioned,  or  tolerated  a  plu- 


X  PREFACE. 

rality  system  of  wives  among  the  people  of  Israel, 
I  hope  to  meet  and  refute, —  God  giving  me  light 
and  power.  Here  I  will  only  say  that  the  great 
mistake  of  all  Bible  critics  has  been  their  false 
assumption  that  the  men  of  Israel,  because  they 
were  Oriental,  were  polygamists. 

And  bear  in  mind,  that  on  the  solution  of  this 
point  depends  the  great  question  whether  the  mar- 
riage institution  in  our  country  shall  be  held  a 
sacred  ordinance,  instituted  by  the  Creator  no  less 
for  the  happiness  than  for  the  purity  of  our  race,  and 
thei-efore  to  be  guarded  and  preserved  inviolate  by 
the  K^atioual  Government ;  or  whether  it  is  a  mere 
arrangement  of  society,  a  law  of  human  authority, 
and  therefore  liable  to  be  modified  to  suit  the  cii-- 

'If 

cumstances  of  new  situations,  and  the  desires  and 
schemes  of  selfish  or  powerful  men. 

In  short,  the  question  of  admitting  the  Territory 
of  Utah  as  a  State  into  our  Union  must  be  tried 
and  decided  chiefly  on  this  issue  — Whether  j^olj-g- 
amy  is  not  a  sin  against  God's  law  of  equality  in 
marriage,  and  therefore  an  outrage  on  the  inalienable 
rights  of  humanity,  which  outrage  would,  if  allowed, 
infallibly  destroy  the  freedom  of  women  and  the 
republican  equality  of  men? 

Let  us  humbly,  and  with  earnest  prayers  for  the 
aid  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  can  guide  us  into  all 
truth,  search  the  Scriptures  for  the  knowledge  of 
the  truth  in  this  important  matter. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

PAOE 

The  PkixMal  Law  op  Marriage   13 

CHAPTER  II. 
The  Law  of  Divixe  Providence   20 

CHAPTER  III. 
Noah   33 

CHAPTER  IV. 
Abraham  and  the  Promise   88 

CHAPTER  V. 
Jacob  and  his  Sons   49 

CHAPTER  VI. 
The  Giving  of  the  Law   63 

CHAPTER  VII. 
The  Special  Laws  of  Moses   83 


CHAPTER.  VIII. 

The  Judges  of  Israel  


  106 

si 


Xii  CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

PAGB 

David,  King  of  Israel   122 

CHAPTER  X. 
Solomon  the  Wise   147 

CHAPTER  XI. 
The  Books  of  Solomon   1G7 

CHAPTER  XII. 
The  Kings  and  the  Peophets   192 

CHAPTER  XIII. 
The  Gospel  of  Jesus  Chkist   205 

CHAPTER  XIV. 
The  Apostles   217 

CHAPTER  XV. 
The  Great  Question   225 

CHAPTER  XVI. 
Conclusion.  —  Summary  of  the  Argument   235 


OPINIONS  CONCERNING 

THE 

BIBLE  LAW  OF  MARRIAGE. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  PRIMAL  LAW  OF  MARRIAaE. 

THE  union  or  society  of  one  man  witK  one 
woman  is  the  Bible  law  of  marriage.  This 
was  the  primal  law  of  God, 

This  fundamental  ordinance  for  the  govern- 
ment of  the  human  race  is  of  God,  and  has 
been  set  forth  and  made  known  to  mankind  in 
a  threefold  manner  : 

1st.  In  the  Law  of  Creation. 
2d.  In  the  Law  of  Providence. 
3d.  In  the  Law  of  Revelation. 
That  the  law  of  creation  was  strict  mono- 
gamy, one  man  for  one  woman,  no  sane  per- 

?  13 


14 


THE   PEIMAL  LAW. 


son,  who  believes  the  Bible  history,  will  deny. 
Let  us  look  over  the  proofs. 

God  made  man  male  and  female.  They  were 
created  for  each  otlier.  The  woman  was  formed 
from  the  substance  of  the  man,  and  therefore 
designed,  by  the  manner  of  her  creation,  to  be 
one  with  him.  God  united  them  in  marriage, 
and  blessed  them.  God  gave  them  knowledge 
of  the  relation  they  bore  to  each  other;  this 
is  evident  from  the  words  of  the  man  when 
receiving  the  woman : 

"  And  Adam  said.  This  is  now  bone  of  my 
bones,  and  flesh  of  my  flesh  :  she  shall  be  called 
woman,  because  she  was  taken  out  of  man. 

"  Therefore  shall  a  man  leave  his  father  and 
his  mother,  and  shall  cleave  unto  his  wife :  and 
they  shall  be  one  flesh."  —  Genesis  ii.  23,  24. 

Such  was  the  primal  law  of  marriage.  Will 
any  man  who  admits  the  truth  and  authority 
of  the  Bible,  assert  that  this  oneness  in  union 
could  exist  between  a  man  and  "  two  or  three,"  • 
or  three  hundred  women  ? 

If  the  rule  can  be  set  aside  at  all  without  - 
sin,  that  is,  without  breaking  God's  primal  law, 
then  tlie  number  of  women  united  to  one  man 
would  be  immaterial  by  this  law. 


THE   PKIMAL  LAW. 


15 


Some  other  rule  of  limitation  must  be  framed, 
either  by  divine  or  by  human  authority,  to 
make  the  measure  of  right  in  the  numbe]'  of 
wives. 

God  surely  did  not  frame  any  other  law. 
He  could  not  have  done  so  -without  a  new  cre- 
ation. 

Did  God  leave  this.  His  first  law,  His  most 
important  law  for  human  beings  in  their  rela- 
tions to  each  otlier,  incomplete,  or  subject  to 
change  at  the  will  of  man? 

The  prophet  Malaclii  shall  answer  this  ques- 
tion. Living  three  thousand  six  hundred  years 
after  the  creation,  and  speaking  by  divine  inspi- 
ration, he  thus  witnesses  against  the  adultery 
and  polygamy,  or  divorce  without  cause  (all 
these  tran^ressions  of  the  divine  law  of  mar- 
riage are  the  same  sin)  of  the  Jewish  men.  He 
says : 

"  The  Lord  hath  been  witness  between  thee 
and  the  wife  of  thy  youth,  against  whom  thou 
hast  dealt  treaclierously :  yet  is  she  thy  com- 
panion and  the  wife  of  thy  covenant. 

"And  did  not  He  make  one?  Yet  had  He  the 
residue  of  the  Spirit.  And  wherefore  one? 
That  He  might  seek  a  goodly  seed.  Therefore 


16 


THE   PRIMAL  LAW. 


take  heed  to  your  spirit,  and  let  none  deal 
treacherously  against  the  "wife  of  his  youth."  — 
JIalachi  ii.  14,  15. 

These  solemn  warnings,  this  inspired  protest 
against  taking  more  wives  than  one,  were  among 
the  last  messages  of  God  to  His  chosen  people 
under  the  old  dispensation.  They  show  that 
the  primal  law  of  marriage,  one  man  with  one 
woman,  was  never  set  aside,  was  never  altered 
by  Divine  permission.  Nay,  more,  the  reason 
for  the  law,  to  secure  "  a  goodly  seed,"  that  is, 
the  j)urity  and  security  of  the  family  relation, 
is  now  and  has  ever  been  felt  a  necessity  of 
enlightened  human  legislation.  Wherever  this 
principle  is  violated,  insurmountable  evils  de- 
structive of  human  improvement  exist,  and  the 
race  is  deteriorated. 

That  the  wise  and  good  God  did  not  leave  to 
men  the  j)ower  of  overturning  universally  the 
true  law  of  marriage,  has  saved  the  world  from 
utter  ruin.  Not  only  was  this  conjugal  fidelity 
made  absolute  for  the  first  wedded  pair,  but 
also  the  law  of  monogamy  was  stamped  iiito 
the  constitution  of  humanity.  In  the  succes- 
sion of  the  race,  the  male  and  female  Avere  to 
hold  this  same  equality  of  j)roportion  to  each 


THE   PRliMAL  LAW. 


17 


other ;  the  numbers  of  each  sex  born  into  the 
world  were  to  agree,  as  at  the  creation. 

Thus  we  find  in  every  age,  country,  and  cli- 
mate, among  every  people,  under  every  form  of 
government,  the  same  proportion  of  male  and 
female  births  takes  place.  Not  exactly  equal, 
but  preponderating  on  the  side  of  the  males 
in  the  proportion  of  about  100  boys  to  94 
girls. 

This  provision  is  evidently  to  meet  the  greater 
casualties  to  which  the  life  of  the  man  child  is 
liable  in  his  hazardous  pursuits  and  wasting 
exposures. 

In  a  table  of  English  statistics  now  before 
me,  I  find  that  in  1854  the  whole  number  of 
births  in  England  was  635,005 ;  of  this  num- 
ber, 324,669  were  boys,  and  310,336  were  girls ; 
or  over  fourteen  thousand  less  of  the  latter  than 
the  former. 

A  similar  j^roportion  holds  good  in  our  own 
land,  and  in  every  other  country  of  tlie  globe. 

Such  is  the  immutability  of  God's  law  of 
creation.  It  imposes  strict  monogamy  on  men 
now  as  it  did  in  Eden.  Men  may  denounce  this 
law  as  too  stringent ;  they  may  deny  its  holi- 

2* 


18 


THE   PRIMAL  LAW. 


ness,  may  violate  its  spirit;  but  they  cannot 
abrogate  the  law. 

It  stands  engrafted  into  the  nature  of  the 
human  being.  It  is  proclaimed  anew  at  every 
numbering  of  the  people ;  one  male  to  one 
female ;  such  is  the  inviolable  rule. 

In  view  of  these  unerring  results,  does  not 
reason  teach  us  that  monogamy,  and  not  polyg- 
amy, is  the  law  of  creation  for  the  sexes  ? 

Can  any  man,  infidel  though  he  may  be,  who 
pretends  to  a  knowledge  of  philosophy,  defend 
a  plurality  of  wives  on  the  ground  of  natural 
justice  between  man  and  man,  putting  woman's 
happiness  out  of  the  question  ? 
-  As  the  sexes  are  equal  in  numbers,  it  follows 
that  if  one  man  be  permitted  to  have  "  two  or 
three  wives,"  or  any  number  over  one,  other 
men  will  be  deprived  of  their  right  to  any  wife, 
because  the  supply  would  not  be  equal  to  the 
demand. 

And  how  dare  any  Christian  man,  any  min- 
ister at  God's  altar,  assert  that  a  license,  which 
would  violate  natural  law,  and  consequently 
destroy  the  balance  of  good  in  the  universe,  has 
been  sanctioned  or  "  tolerated  "  by  the  God  of 
Highteousness  ? 


THE  PEIMAL  LAW. 


19 


The  irreparable  and  awful  evils  that  over- 
whelm society  whenever  this  law  of  strict  mon- 
ogamy is  set  aside,  I  shall  not  here  attempt  to 
portray.  The  history  of  these  results  belongs 
properly  to  the  second  division  of  my  subject, 
viz.,  the  Law  of  Providence. 

Now  I  would  only  draw  the  minds  of  my 
readers  to  the  careful  study  of  the  Book  of 
Genesis,  and  to  an  earnest  and  honest  consider- 
ation of  these  three  questions  : 

1st.  Did  the  Law  of  Creation  allow  polygamy? 

2d.  Did  the  Fall  introduce  it  by  the  sanction 
of  God? 

3d.  Is  not  polygamy  a  sin  against  God's 
primal  law  of  marriage  ? 


CHAPTER  II. 


"THE  LAW  OF  DIVINE  PROVIDENCE. 

VEE.Y  moral  law,  being  founded  in  rig-lit- 


JLi  eousness,  is,  and  must  be,  ujDlield  by  the 
punishment  of  its  transgressors.  Hence,  if  a 
certain  course  of  human  conduct  is  always  fol- 
lowed by  good  results,  and  its  opposite  course 
by  evil  results,  are  we  not,  as  rational  beings, 
compelled  to  believe  that  the  former  is  the  right 
way,  and  the  law  of  Divine  Providence  ? 

Thus,  I  affirm  that  monogamy  is  the  Divine 
law  of  marriage,  because  its  transgressions, 
either  by  uncurbed  license,  concubinage,  or 
polygamy,  are  always,  and  everywhere,  followed 
by  evil,  and  never  by  good;  that  is,  followed 
by  the  punishment,  in  some  form,  of  the  indi- 
vidual who  breaks  the  law,  or  of  the  commu- 
nity or  people  avIio  allow  of  the  transgressions. 

In  dealing  with  moral  questions,  the  diffi- 
culty usually  is  that  mathematical  or  tangible 
evidence  is  demanded  to  support  our  assertions. 


20 


THE   LAW   OF   DIVINE   PEOVIDENCE.  21 

When  we  say  that  murder  is  sin,  and  can 
point  to  the  dead  body  of  a  man  deprived  of 
life  by  the  hand  of  violence,  every  human  heart 
responds  to  the  cry,  because  the  crime  is  tangi- 
ble and  touches  the  life-instinct  of  all.  And 
Christian  men  demand  the  death  of  the  mur- 
derer, appealing  to  God's  law  as  the  charter  of 
right  to  punish  the  sin. 

But  when  we  say  that  polygamy  is  sin  per  se, 
the  prevalence  of  the  custom  is  urged  in  excuse 
for  it  where  it  has  long  existed;  and  the  ex- 
amples of  men,  whom  the  Bible  designates  as 
"faithful  and  chosen  of  God,"  are  cited  to 
prove  that,  under  some  circumstances,  such 
connections  have  been,  by  Divine  tolerance, 
permitted,  and  therefore  the  having  of  more 
than  one  wife  is  not  of  itself  a  sin. 

"  What  is  sin  ? 

"Sin  is  any  want  of  conformity  unto,  or 
transgression  of,  the  Law  of  God." 

Such  is  the  definition  of  the  Assembly's  Cate- 
chism. The  wisdom  of  man  has  never,  prob- 
ably, rendered  a  clearer  exposition.  Yet  the 
whole  is  not  told.  The  depth  of  the  rule  is  not 
reached  by  this  explanation. 

Murder  is  not  sin  merely  because  it  is  forbid- 


22      THE  LAW   OF   DIVIKE  PROVIDENCE. 

den  by  the  law  of  God,  but  because  murder  is 
sin.  Therefore  God  by  His  hiw  did  forbid  it. 
Hence  the  principle  is  established  that  each 
and  every  sin  enumerated  in  the  Decalogue  was 
prohibited  because  opposed  to  righteousness, 
the  primal  law  of  Heaven. 

God  could  not,  reverently  speaking,  even  by 
His  omnipotent  fiat,  have  done  otherwise  than 
forbid  these  sins,  murder,  adultery,  theft,  false 
witness,  etc.,  for  the  reason  that  He  is  righteous, 
and  His  throne  is  established  in  righteousness. 

It  is  true  that  God's  law  is,  to  us  finite  beings, 
the  measure  of  right,  and  so  the  exposition  of 
the  catechism  is  in  this  sense  correct.    Still  it 

« 

tends  to  lower,  in  human  estimation,  the  stand- 
ard of  Divine  pcrfectness,  when  we  consider 
sin  as  the  consequence  merely  of  transgressing 
the  law  of  God,  and  not  as  the  inevitable  result 
of  violating  His  goodness,  which  is  the  fountain 
of  Divine  Love. 

Every  one  avIio  believes  the  Bible,  and  I 
write  to  believers,  must  have  formed  some  idea 
of  what  is  meant  by  the  declaration  — 

"  So  God  created  man  in  His  own  image ; 
in  the  image  of  God  created  He  him ;  male  and 
female  created  He  them."  —  Genesis  i.  27. 


THE   LAW    OF   DIVINE   PROVIDENCE.  23 


Here  we  are  taught  tliat  Adam,  meaning,  as 
the  Bible  declares,  the  man  and  the  woman,  had 
certain  attributes  which  entitled  him,  or  them, 
to  this  glorious  distinction,  nowhere  recorded 
of  angels,  of  being*  made  "  in  the  image  of 
God." 

What  attributes  of  the  Most  High  were  be- 
stowed upon  Adam  ? 

Not  Omnipotence,  nor  Omniscience,  nor  Om- 
nipresence, nor  Infallibility ;  the  human  has 
not  and  never  had  these  attributes  or  powers. 

But  the  Lord  God  did  bestow  on  Adam  the 
Divine  attributes  of  Spiritual  Immortality,  of 
Holiness,  and  of  Love.  We  are  taught  this  in 
the  Word  of  God ;  prophets  and  apostles  alike 
bear  witness ;  and  we  are  constrained  to  adopt  the 
conclusion  that  Love,  Holixess,  and  Immok- 
TALITY  make  the  "  image  of  God,"  His  Soul, 
so  to  sjDcak ;  and  that  His  other  attributes  are 
the  means  whereby  He  renders  this  "  image " 
visible  or  known  to  created  intelligences. 

As  Immortality,  in  the  strict  sense  of  the 
term,  is  a  state  of  being  and  not  of  doing,  it 
follows  that  this  "  image  of  God,"  or  His  attri- 
butes represented  in  the  character  of  the  first 
human  pair,  were  Holiness  and  Love. 


24     THE   LAW  OF   DIVINE  PROVIDENCE. 

From  these  two  attributes  or  principles  are 
derived  those  virtues  that  we  call  God-like, 
namely,  Truth,  Purity,  Justice,  Goodness,  and 
INIercy :  these  all  result  from  Holiness  and 
Love. 

Now,  in  the  relation  of  the  first  human  pair 
to  God,  and  in  their  conjugal  relation  to  each 
other,  these  divine  endowments  of  the  human 
soul  —  Love  and  Holiness  —  had  in  Eden  full 
scoj)e  and  fitting  enjoyment.  Had  they  con- 
tinued obedient,  that  is,  holy,  the  perfect  hap- 
piness as  well  as  sinlessness  of  the  race  would 
have  been  complete  and  eternal. 

Jesus  Christ  fully  sustains  this  doctrine  in 
His  declaration  "that  the  whole  law  is  comprised 
in  this,  "  to  love  God  supremely,"  which  would 
be  holiness,  and  "  to  love  our  neighfjor  as  our- 
selves," which  includes  truth,  purity,  justice, 
goodness,  and  mercy,  in  all  our  actions. 

Thus,  if  we  fulfilled  Christ's  injunctions,  the 
kingdom  of  God  would  come  to  us  now  as  it 
was  in  Eden. 

Love  and  Holiness  are  required  as  the  condi- 
tion of  the  soul's  salvation.  The  Saviour's 
blood  was  shed  to  redeem  man  from  selfishness, 
which  is  sin,  and  reclothe  him  in  the  right- 


THE  LAW  OF  DIVINE   TROVIDENCE.  25 

eousness  of  Christ,  wliicli  is  love  and  holiness, 
thus  renewing  in  man  "  the  image  of  God." 

Here  two  questions  are  suggested.  First : 
Had  Adam,  when  in  Eden,  the  knowledge  of 
the  moral  law  (included  in  the  Ten  Command- 
ments), the  same  in  essence  as  that  promulgated 
on  Sinai,  and  taught  by  Christ,  and  recognized 
by  Christians  as  the  Law  of  God,  binding  on 
every  human  soul,  the  transgression  of  which 
is  sin  ? 

Adam  certainly  knew  that  the  law  of  mar- 
riage was  monogamy,  because  he  was  the  organ 
of  its  promulgation.  He  must  have  known 
that  obedience  to  the  Creator,  including  love 
and  worship,  was  not  only  his  blessed  privilege, 
but  the  law  of  his  being. 

These  two  duties,  love  toward  God,  and  love 
toward  each  other,  true,  pure,  unselfish  love, 
include  the  whole  requirements  of  the  Moral 
Law.  Therefore  Adam  must  have  known  this 
law. 

Second :  Did  Adam,  by  the  Fall,  lose  his 
knowledge  of  God's  moral  law,  or  lose  his  own 
sense  of  responsibility  to  obey  it? 

Will  any  Christian  man  reply  in  the  aflSrm- 
ative  ? 


26     THE   LAW   OF    DIVIXE  PROVIDENCE. 


Then,  if  Adam  did  not  lose  his  knowledge 
that  God  required  love  and  holiness  in  His  cre- 
ated sons,  Adam  must  have  known  that  idola- 
try, murder,  adultery,  theft,  covetousness,  and 
all  the  transgressions  of  holiness  and  love,  were 
forbidden,  and  were  sins.  Adam  knew  this  as 
truly  as  we  now  know  such  transgressions  to 
he  wickedness,  not  merely  because  forbidden  in 
the  decalogue,  but  from  their  inherent  false- 
hood, injustice,  and  destructiveness. 

There  is  a  soul-felt  necessity  for  the  Moral 
Law,  that  code  of  love  and  holiness,  in  the 
moral  government  of  the  world.  Without  the 
enforcement  of  these  injunctions,  there  could  be 
no  goodness  in  the  universe. 

Every  transgressor  feels  in  his  own  mind  and 
conscience  condemned.  Thus  Cain  stood  before 
God  when  that  terrible  question,  "Where  is 
Abel  thy  brother  ?  "  sounded  in  his  ears. 

God  had  not  promulgated  a  law  against  mur- 
der. The  law  that  convicted  and  condemned 
Cain  was  written  in  his  own  soul.  "  The  image 
of  God  "  created  in  the  human  nature,  though 
broken,  defiled,  and  darkened  by  the  Fall,  was 
not  destroyed ;  that  is,  the  hope  of  good  w;is  not 
crushed  out,  the  knowledge  of  what  was  good 


TI}E  LAW   OF   DIVINE  PROVIDENCE.  27 

was  not  taken  away,  the  wish  for  good  was  not 
annihilated. 

Evil  was  known,  and  its  deadly  influence  had 
polluted  the  heart,  and  made  the  will  a  rebel  to 
God ;  but  the  mind  could  see  the  light  of  truth, 
and  conscience  would  feel  the  justice  of  punish- 
ment, because  the  law  of  love  and  holiness  had 
been  violated. 

This  self  -  condemnation  of  the  sinner  has 
been  feelingly  expressed  by  St.  Paul  in  his 
epistle  to  the  Romans,  chap.  vii.  The  intensity 
of  the  struggle  between  good  and  evil  in  the 
human  soul  is  summed  up  in  that  fearful  cry  : 
"  O  wretched  man  that  I  am  !  who  shall  deliver 
me  from  the  body  of  this  death?" 

Sin  was  first  manifested  in  Eden  by  disobe- 
dience to  the  law  of  God,  and  shame  followed 
before  the  guilty  pair  had  been  arraigned,  thus 
showing  that  transgression  inevitably  brings 
evil,  that  is,  punishment. 

The  next  development  of  sin  was  in  the  self- 
ishness of  the  man  toward  the  woman,  seeking 
to  throw  on  her  the  greatest  share  of  the  blame 
of  disobedience  to  God.  Thus,  even  in  Eden, 
the  love  of  each  one  to  the  other  was  suffering 
eclipse. 


28     THE  LAW   OF   DIVINE  PROVIDENCE. 


After  tlie  Expulsion,  sin,  by  the  hand  of  the 
fratricide  Cain,  was  written  in  letters  of  blood 
on  the  mourning  earth,  that  still  bears  the  hid- 
eous record. 

Next,  following  murder,  and  in  league  with 
it,  comes  polygamy — as  Lamech  confesses,  coil- 
ing, like  the  slimy  serpent,  its  polluting  folds 
around  the  "  image  of  God"  in  the  human  soul, 
and  poisoning  with  its  foul  breath  the  pure 
air  that  fed  the  chaste  connubial  torch,  which 
made  the  warmth  of  domestic  peace  and  the 
light  of  social  happiness. 

The  tempter  had  beguiled  the  woman  in  her 
Eden  of  bliss  by  raising  in  her  soul  the  desire 
of  wisdom,  and  in  her  heart  the  wish  for  what 
looked  pleasant  and  seemed  good. 

Could  this  foul  and  lying  spirit  of  evil  fail, 
when,  coming  to  man  in  his  sorrow,  as  he  toiled 
wearily  among  the  thorns  and  writhed  beneath 
the  terrors  of  the  curse,  this  old  serpent  took 
the  form  of  licentious  passion,  and  for  the  Eden 
lost  showed  men  their  power  over  women,  and 
the  pleasures  of  sensual  enjoyment? 

The  recorded  history  of  "  the  World  before 
the  Flood,"  reaching  over  a  space  of  more  than 
sixteen  hundred  years,  is  all  comprised  in  the 


THE   LAW   OF   DIVINE   PROVIDENCE.  29 

first  seven  chapters  of  the  Book  of  Genesis. 
Study  that  history,  and  learn  there,  from  the 
first  three  chapters,  the  Law  of  Creation,  that 
God  formed  one  man  and  one  woman  for  each 
other,  and  united  them  in  holy  marriage,  thus 
establishing  forever  the  sanctity  of  monogamy 
for  our  race.  Then,  in  the  last  four  chapters, 
see  how  sternly  the  Law  of  Divine  Providence, 
always  in  harmony  with  the  Law  of  Creation, 
punished  the  sins  of  licentiousness  and  polyg- 
amy, or  transgressions  against  the  law  of  mon- 
ogamy, by  the  total  destruction  of  "  all  flesh," 
all  mankind,  excepting  the  four  men  and  four 
women  who  had  kept  the  holy  law  of  marriage. 
Thus  was  the  law  of  union  between  husband 

« 

and  wife  established  by  the  Creator  in  the 
"beginning,"  reaffirmed,  exalted,  and  sanctified 
anew  by  the  destruction  of  the  antediluvian 
world. 

There  are  theologians  who,  not  liking  utterly 
to  condemn  polygamy  as  sin,  lest  good  old 
Jacob  should  be  scandalized,  always  try  to  avoid 
or  cover  up  this  question.  Such  clergymen  rep- 
resent the  great  wickedness  of  the  old  world  to 
be  "  ungodly  marriages,"  that  is,  the  daughters, 

3* 


30     THE  LAW  OF   DIVINE  PROVIDENCE. 

or  female  descendants  of  Cain,  being  mai'ried 
to  the  sons  or  male  descendants  of  Seth. 

Neither  the  language  of  the  Bible  nor  the 
social  condition  of  the  people,  admits  this  con- 
struction.   The  Bible  record  is  — 

That  "  The  sons  of  God  saw  the  daughters 
of  men,  that  they  were  fair ;  and  they  took 
them  wives  of  all  which  they  chose."  —  Genesis 
vi.  2. 

If  it  were  reported  that  our  Christian  mis- 
sionaries now  in  China  "  had  seen  that  the 
daughters  of  the  Celestials  were  fair,  and  had 
taken  wives  of  all  that  they  chose,"  would  any 
person  in  our  country  understand  that  those 
missionaries  were  restricted  to  one  wife  each  ? 

Would  not  the  idea  of  "  ungodly  marriages," 
or  of  polygamy,  that  is,  "  more  wives  than  one," 
be  suggested  to  our  minds  as  the  sin  of  these 
"  sons  of  God  ?  " 

Moreover,  the  state  of  society  so  graphically 
described  by  the  inspired  penman  proves  that 
polygamy  and  licentiousness  —  sins  against  the 
purity  of  woman  and  of  true  marriage — were 
the  polluting  root  of  the  crimes  that  caused  the 
destruction  of  men  by  the  tlood. 

"  The  earth  was  filled  with  violence."  This 


THE   LAW  OF   DIVINE   PROVIDENCE.  31 

would  be,  must  of  necessity  be,  where  polygamy- 
is  the  law  or  the  practice  of  men,  because  God's 
law  of  creation  —  one  man  and  one  woman,  or 
the  sexes  in  equal  ratio — is  always  in  operation. 
To  obtain  more  wives  than  one,  injustice  to  all 
women,  and  to  a  large  portion  of  men,  is  the 
first  step. 

Then  comes  the  scourge  of  the  passions,  made 
evil  by  selfishness  and  wrought  up  to  fury  by 
the  fire  of  lust  and  the  rage  of  jealousy.  From 
this  state  of  society  it  follows,  as  surely  as  de- 
struction from  the  sirocco's  deadly  blast,  that 
the  most  devilish  crimes  and  the  deepest  mise- 
ries have  their  origin.  Hence  come  the  mur- 
ders and  mutilations  of  men,  the  shames  and 
sorrows  of  women,  hatreds,  wars,  oppressions, 
cruelties,  and  pollutions,  till  holiness  and  love, 
which  make  "the  image  of  God"  in  the  human 
being,  are  crushed  out,  and  the  best  and  purest 
afiections  of  our  nature  are  trodden  down  like 
the  mire  in  the  streets. 

Thus  the  social  state  of  the  Old  World  is 
represented,  when  "  every  imagination  of  the 
thoughts  of  man's  heart  was  only  evil  contin- 
ually. 

"And  the  Lord  said,  I  will  destroy  man, 


32    THE  LAW  OF   DIVIXE  PROVIDENCE. 

whom  I  have  created,  from  the  face  of  the 
earth. 

"And  God  looked  upon  the  earth,  and  behold, 
it  was  corrupt ;  for  all  flesh  had  corrupted  his 
way  upon  the  earth. 

"  And  God  said  unto  Noah,  The  end  of  all 
flesh  is  come  before  me ;  for  the  earth  is  filled 
with  violence  through  them  :  and  behold,  I  will 
destroy  them  with  the  earth. 

"  But  Noah  found  grace  in  the  eyes  of  the 
Lord."  —  Genesis  vi. 


CHAPTER  III. 


NOAH. 

I HAVE  asserted,  in  the  preceding  chapter, 
that  polygamy  is  proved  to  be  sin  because  it 
is  always  punished,  individually  or  nationally, 
by  Divine  Providence. 

It  might  be  more  philosophical  to  say,  that 
the  sin  of  polygamy  has  in  itself  that  departure 
from  righteousness  which  must  end  in  evil  and 
suffering. 

But  sufferings,  it  may  be  urged,  are  incident 
to  every  form  of  society.  True ;  because  the 
heart  of  fallen  man  is  corrupt,  and  whatever  he 
does  bears  this  impress  of  evil  and  imperfect- 
ness.  Still,  there  are  relations  in  life — all  those 
relations,  actions,  and  pursuits  which  the  Word 
of  God  sanctions  or  does  not  forbid ;  — these 
bring  haj^piness  and  afford  means  and  opportu- 
nities of  improvement  to  humian  nature. 

Not  so  with  the  relations,  actions,  and  pur- 
suits of  men  which  God  has  positively  forbid- 

33 


34 


NOAH. 


den,  either  by  a  separate  injunction  or  inclusive 
command ;  these  invariably  and  always  are 
found  to  be  an  injury,  g,  snare,  and  a  curse  to 
men. 

Now  look  on  IMount  Ararat,  and  behold,- with 
the  eye  of  faith,  the  uncovered  ark,  giving  forth 
its  living  witnesses  of  these  truths. 

Has  not  God,  who  wrought  for  those  eight 
persons,  saved  from  the  Deluge,  that  great  mir- 
acle of  mercy,  ordered  their  domestic  relations 
in  the  right  way  ? 

Those  four  married  couples  are  to  re-people 
the  desolated  world.  If  monogamy  were  nof 
the  only  law  of  marriage  compatible  with  justice 
and  righteousness,  the  only  law  God  ordained 
for  man,  would  it  have  been  so  signally  sus- 
tained ? 

Was  there  not,  at  this  time,  a  good  and  a 
suitable  opportunity  for  introducing  polygamy, 
provided  it  had  been  good  and  not  evil  ? 

"  Two  or  three  wives  "  for  each  of  these  four 
men,  arguing  after  the  manner  of  those  who 
uphold  the  institution,  or  apologize  for  the  sin, 
would  have  seemed  very  desirable  in  order  to 
the  more  speedy  re-peopling  of  the  world  ;  also, 
the  greater  satisfaction  of  man's  carnal  nature, 


NOAH. 


35 


provided  this  could  be  done  without  sin,  might 
have  been  "  tolerated." 

Not  thus  was  the  order  of  the  All  Righteous. 
God  practically  reaffirmed  on  Ararat  His  first 
declaration,  that  "  It  is  not  good  for  man  to  bo 
alone ; "  And  God,  also,  there  re-ordained  His 
first  law  of  marriage  —  one  man  with  one  wo- 
man. 

It  may  be  asked  why  this  law  was  not  posi- 
tively promulgated  to  Noah  and  his  sons,  as 
was  the  law  against  murder  ? 

The  reason  can  be  clearly  understood  by  any 
person  who  wiil  honestly  and  carefully  study 
this  page  of  sacred  history. 

God's  law  of  marriage  was  not  only  under- 
stood, but  had  been  strictly  obeyed  by  Noah 
and  his  sons.  They  needed  not  to  have  it  more 
distinctly  set  forth.  TJiey  also  knew  the  Di- 
vine law  against  murder,  because  it  was,  and  is, 
stamped  on  every  human  conacience  ;  and  they 
had  obeyed  it,  or  they  would  not  have  been 
saved. 

But  a  new  ordinance  was,  after  the  flood, 
given  to  men  respecting  their  sustenance,  name- 
ly, the  permission,  or  command,  rather,  to  eat 
animal  food.    Before  that  time,  the  whole  hu- 


36 


NOAH. 


man  race  liad  been  restricted  to  a  vegetable  diet. 
Genesis  i.  29. 

This  new  law,  in  its  application,  required 
that  the  sacredness  of  human  life  should  be 
more  distinctly  guarded.  Therefore,  to  prevent 
cannibalism,  or  the  eating  of  human  flesh,  the 
terrible  denunciation  against  even  the  carniv- 
orous beast,  if  it  dared  to  destroy  the  life  of 
man,  was  thundered  forth;  and  also  the* awful 
doom  of  him  who  sheds  his  brother's  blood. 

But  polygamy  needed  not  a  new  prohibition. 
It  had  been  swej)t  from  off  the  face  of  the  earth. 
The  deep  waters  had  washed  out  its  pollutions ; 
the  primal  law  of  creation  was  justified,  was 
sanctified,  so  to  speak,  in  a  living  fourfold 
statute;  and  thus,  as  it  were,  stereotyped  into 
the  hearts  of  Noah  and  his  sons.  They  needed 
not  the  formal  prohibition  of  a  sin  which  their 
own  experience  had  told  them  was  so  cursed  of 
God,  and  which,  under  their  circumstances,  they 
could  not  commit. 

Certainly  those  four  men  would  not  feel  that 
more  wives  than  one  were  needed  by  any  hus- 
band, when  God  himself  prophesied  their  pros- 
perity and  increase. 

"And  you,  be  ye  fruitful  and  multiply; 


NOAH. 


37 


bring  fortli  abundantly  in  the  earth,  and  mul- 
tiplj  therein."  —  Genesis  ix.  7.  Thus  God 
blessed  these  four  families  living  in  the  sanctity 
of  His  primal  law,  and  the  token  of  mercy  was 
given  as  His  blessing  to  a  renovated  world. 

The  descendants  of  Japhet  have,  with  very 
few  exceptions,  always  obeyed  the  primal  law 
of  marriage.  Nationally,  as  well  as  individu- 
ally, monogamy  has  been  the  rule  of  all  Ja- 
phetic peoples.  These  now  hold  the  destiny  of 
the  world  in  their  hands.  With  two  exceptions, 
the  descendants  of  Japhet  have  ever  been  the 
superior  or  governing  race  —  superior  in  learn- 
ing, arts,  sciences,  and  civilization.  One  of 
these  exceptions  was  for  old  Egypt ;  but  at  that 
time  the  descendants  of  Mizraim,  the  second  son 
of  Ham,  were,  as  I  shall  show,  strict  monoga- 
mists. 

The  other  instance  is  God's  chosen  people. 
The  Hebrews  were  never  polygamists.  I  shall 
clearly  prove  this,  although  that  polluting  sin 
has  shadowed  the  names,  and  did  defile  the 
homes  of  some  of  the  leaders  of  Israel,  and  was, 
next  to  idolatry,  the  sin  that  led  to  the  over- 
throw of  the  Jewish  nation :  still  the  Hebrews 
were  not  polygamists. 

4 


CHAPTER  IV. 


ABKAHAM  AND  THE  PROMISE. 

OUR  hundred  and  eighteen  years  had  gone 


JL  by  since  the  bow  of  the  covenant  was 
rounded  over  Ararat,  and  the  earth  is  again 
filled  with  wickedness. 

And  now  one  family  is  selected ;  one  man 
and  one  woman,  as  at  the  first,  and  through  this 
instrumentality  the  Lord  God  is  to  show  forth 
His  wonderful  power,  mercy,  justice,  goodness, 
truth  and  love,  in  the  redemption  of  mankind. 

Abram,  or  Abraham,  was  chosen  to  be  the 
progenitor  of  a  people  to  whom  should  be  en- 
trusted the  oracles  of  the  Most  High,  and 
through  this  line  the  Redeemer  was  to  be  mani- 
fested in  the  flesh. 

Abraham  was  seventy-five  years  old,  and  his 
wife  Sarah  sixty-five,  when  they  journeyed 
through  the  land  of  Canaan,  he  holding  God's 
promise  to  give  it  to  Abraham's  seed,  and  make 
them  a  multitude,  like  the  stars  in  the  sky,  like 


38 


ABRAHAM. 


39 


tlie  sands  on  the  sea-shore  —  and  as  yet  he  had 
no  son. 

If  Abraham  had  then  concluded  that  the 
promise  woukl  be  best  accomplished  through 
jiolygamy — indeed,  that  duty  required  him  to 
take  a  younger  wife,  or  "  two  or  three  wives  " — 
would  he  not  have  had  a  plausible  reason  for 
his  transgression  of  the  primal  law  ? 

The  nation  from  which  he  had  come  out,  had 
doubtless  fallen  into  this  sm.  Why  did  he  not 
become  a  polygamist  ? 

Simply  because  he  was  a  just  man,  and  knew 
that  God's  law  of  marriage  would  be  violated  by 
polygamy.  So  he  waited  for  ten  long  weary 
years,  childless,  yet  having  faith  in  the  promise. 

And  now,  as  at  the  first,  woman's  eagerness 
to  attain  the  good  led  to  the  evil. 

Sarah  loved  her  husband  so  devotedly,  had 
such  perfect  faith  in  his  destiny,  that  she  was 
willing  to  sacrifice  her  dearest  and  holiest  rights 
of  wifehood  to  gain  for  him  the  fulfilment  of  the 
promise. 

She  humbly  suggested  that  the  Lord  God 
might  not  intend  her  to  be  the  mother  of  her 
husband's  son  and  heir. 

This  sad  history  and  its  miserable  result 


40 


ABRAHAM. 


should  be  carefully  pondered  by  tbose  eager 
zealots  wlio  would  take  God's  work  out  of  His 
own  hands,  because  He  does  not  do  it  in  tlieir 
time  nor  way. 

Where  can  be  found  a  more  perfect  example 
of  personal  self-sacrifice,  to  promote  what  she 
believed  to  be  God's  will  and  the  good  of  hu- 
manity, than  Sarah  voluntarily  submitted  to, 
when  she  gave  to  her  beloved  husband  her 
handmaid  Hagar  "  to  be  his  wife  "? 

Well  might  angels  have  wept  when  they  saw 
the  broken  heart  of  this  true  wife,  in  its  agony 
of  love,  thus  laid  quivering  on  the  altar  of  duty, 
as  she  believed  ;  while,  in  reality,  she  was  sacri- 
ficing her  husband  and  herself  to  the  sugges- 
tions of  the  devil. 

God  is  never  with  us  when  we  break  His 
laws. 

Sarah  committed  her  great  error  of  leading 
her  husband  into  temptation  and  sin  in  the 
earnest  hope  of  furthering  God's  purposes,  as 
though  He  could  not  carry  out  His  designs 
without  the  aid  of  her  devices. 

Miserably  mistaken  woman  !  What  humili- 
ations, what  remorse,  what  sorrows  and  evils  she 
was  bi-inging  on  her  revered  husband,  as  well  as 


ABRAHAM. 


41 


shames  and  miseries  on  herself,  and  wrongs  and 
sufferings  on  her  poor  bondwoman  ! 

From  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  con- 
nection of  Abrabam  with  the  Egyptian  slave, 
there  is  an  unbroken  series  of  troubles.  All  the 
parties  are  miserable,  because  all  have  sinned, 
and  sin,  like  this,  inevitably  brings  its  own 
punishment. 

That  the  connection  was  not  marriage  is  evi- 
dent. Abraham  never  considered  Hagar  as  his 
wife.  He  never  defended  nor  protected  her 
from  the  anger  of  her  mistress,  Sarah.  Hagar 
was  always  treated  and  considered  as  the  bond- 
woman ;  and  thus  she  is  recognized  in  the  New 
Testament  by  St.  Paul. 

When,  fourteen  years  after  the  birth  of  Ish- 
mael,  Sarah  herself  bore  a  son  to  Abraham, 
"  according  to  the  promise,"  then  the  false  na- 
ture of  the  adulterous  compact  with  Hagar  was 
manifested. 

The  son  of  the  bondwoman  was  not  the  heir. 
Sarah,  the  true  wife  —  the  only  wife  —  asserted 
the  rights  of  her  son,  and  God  sanctioned  her 
claim. 

"  Cast  out  the  bondwoman  and  her  son,"  was 
the  command  of  God  to  Abraham. 

4* 


42 


ABRAHAM, 


It  was  a  cruel  fall  for  the  ambitions  Hagar. 
It  was  a  terrible,  and  seemed  a  bard,  judgment 
on  her  young  son,  who  was  made  a  victim  to 
the  sins  of  his  parents. 

Yet  this  is  the  law  of  sin,  of  polygamy  or 
concubinage,  as  truly  as  of  idolatry.  The  black 
waters  of  its  wickedness,  once  allowed  to  flow, 
poison  or  darken  the  pure  well-spring  of  all  in- 
nocent happiness,  of  all  domestic  peace  within 
their  influence. 

Though  God  comforted  the  self-condemned 
Abraham  when,  in  his  grievous  sorrow  that  he 
must  banish  Hasfar  and  her  son  —  his  son  — 
whom  he  dearly  loved,  he  sought  the  Lord,  it  is 
no  palliation  of  the  concubinage.  God  is  mer- 
ciful. He  forgives  the  repentant,  and  the  blood 
of  Christ  blots  out  trans2;ressions.  But  the 
consequences  of  sin  —  that  is,  its  effect  on  char- 
acter and  condition  in  this  life  —  are  not  re- 
mitted, nor  could  they  be  set  aside  even  by  the 
Lord  of  Heaven,  reverently  speaking,  because  it 
is  His  law  that  sin  must  bring  suffering. 

So,  although  God's  promise  to  make  Ishmael 
"  a  great  nation "  has  been  literally  fulfilled, 
and  the  wild  Arab  of  to-day  is  the  living  repre- 
sentative of  this  "  archer  lad  "  who  dwelt  in  the 


ABRAHAM. 


43 


wilderness,  "his  hand  against  every  man  and 
every  man's  hand  against  him,"  yet  the  charac- 
ter of  Ishmael's  descendants,  like  his  own  char- 
acter, has  ever  borne  the  stamp  of  their  origin 
—  unlawfulness  and  sinfulness. 

Thus,  too,  with  Abraham.  He  had,  at  God's 
command,  put  away  his  iniquity  —  sent  Hagar 
into  the  wilderness.  Was  he  clear  from  his 
pollutions  ?  Was  his  faith  as  j)ure  and  stead- 
fast as  the  day  when  first  "  the  Lord  made  a 
covenant"  with  him? 

The  great  trial  of  Abraham's  faith  afterwards, 
proves  that  he  had  truly  repented ;  but  that 
such  a  trial  was  required,  proves  also  how 
widely  he  had  gone  astray. 

In  order  to  make  him  the  representative  of 
the  *'  Faithful "  he  must  be  purified  as  by  fire, 
and  his  perfect  obedience  to  God  made  as  mani- 
fest as  had  been  his  transgression. 

Let  us  dwell  for  a  moment  uj)on  this  pain- 
fully interesting  record. 

It  was  twenty-five  years  from  the  time  of  the 
first  promise  to  the  birth  of  Isaac.  We  have 
seen  the  old  patriarch,  wearied  with  waiting, 
yielding  to  the  temptation  of  a  substitute  for  his 
true  wife. 


44  ABRAHAM. 

Did  this  device  bring  tlie  promised  seed 
sooner  ? 

No  one  will  answer  in  the  affirmative. 

Another  twenty-five  years  have  gone  by,  and 
Isaac  the  beloved,  the  "  only  son,"  according  to 
the  promise,  is  to  be  sacrificed. 

"  Take  now  thy  son,  thine  only  son  Isaac, 
whom  thou  lovest,  and  get  thee  into  the  land  of 
Moriah,  and  ofier  him  there  for  a  burnt-offer- 
ing upon  one  of  the  mountains  which  I  will  tell 
thee  of." 

Such  was  the  command  of  God.  Then  was 
the  triumph  of  Abraham's  obedience  and  faith. 
At  eighty-five  years  of  age  he  had  distrusted 
God's  wisdom  in  keeping  him  childless,  and 
had  done  evil  that  good  might  come. 

But  at  the  age  of  one  hundred  and  twenty- 
five  he  bowed  in  humble  submission  to  the 
Divine  command  that  would  leave  him  cliildless. 
Believing  that  "  God  would  provide  himself  a 
lamb,"  he  trusted  the  same  God  with  the  order- 
ing of  all  things. 

Yet,  oh !  what  agony  of  repentance  for  his 
former  unbelief ;  what  sorrow  for  his  only  son, 
on  whom  the  father's  sin  had  brought  such 
fearful  doom ;  what  struggles  of  paternal  love ; 


ABRAHAM. 


45 


what  anguish  of  heart  at  the  thought  of  his  be- 
loved Sarah,  whom  his  haud  must  make  child- 
less, came  over  his  soul,  like  deep  waters  of 
grief,  as  he  slowly  drew  near,  and  nearer,  the 
place  of  sacrifice ! 

Who  can  describe  such  sorrows  ?  Who  can 
even  imagine  them  ?  By  the  history  we  are 
led  to  believe  that  Abraham's  sufferings  in  that 
trial  were  greater  than  were  ever  before  or  since 
endured  by  a  mortal  man. 

That  this  was  Abraham's  punishment  for  his 
faithlessness  and  sin  in  resrard  to  Hao;ar  there 
cannot  be  a  doubt.  The  inspired  penman  has 
wrought  out,  by  a  few  touches  of  holy  truth, 
this  domestic  drama,  till  it  moves  the  soul  like 
a  living  sorrow.  The  Divine  justice  in  the 
penalty,  even  when  it  demanded  the  "  only  son" 
Isaac  the  beloved,  is  felt  to  be  needed.  No 
other  sacrifice  could  show  that  the  father's  heart 
had  been  purified  by  a  contrite  repentance ;  that 
he  laid  himself  down  at  the  footstool  of  God's 
law,  and,  like  an  humbled  child,  was  willing  that 
Law  should  be  magnified  and  made  honorable, 
even  though  it  crushed  his  own  heart,  because 
of  his  trans2;ressions. 

Can  that  be  a  light  sin,  one  to  be  laughed 


46 


ABRAHAM. 


at "  by  Cliristian  ministers,  wliicli  brings  such 
fearful  results  ?  * 

Granted,  that  his  repentance  and  submission 
were  accej^ted  by  the  Lord,  and  Abraham  was 

*  The  licentious  mode  in  which  some  learned  men,  styling 
themselves  Christians,  have  interpreted  the  "  Holy  Scrip- 
tures," is  well  illustrated  in  the  "  Concordance  "  prepared  by 
that  eminent  scholar,  the  late  Mr.  Alexander  Cruden ;  a  work 
used  by  Protestant  American  Clergymen. 

In  explaining  the  term  "Concubine,"  Mr.  Cruden  asserts 
that  it  meant  an  "  inferior  wife,"  and  that  "Abraham  had  two 
concubines,  namely,  Hagar  and  Keturah."  , 

Now,  Abraham's  marriage  with  Keturah  is  recorded  in  the 
Bible  as  having  taken  place  after  Isaac  was  married  to  Re- 
bekah,  which  did  not  occur  till  a  number  of  years  after  Sarah's 
death.  Abraham  had  been  a  widower  all  these  years ;  his  mar- 
riage with  Keturah  was  as  lawful  a  wedlock  as  with  his  first 
wife,  Sarah  ;  true,  his  sons  by  the  second  wife  did  not  inherit 
the  "Promises  of  God"  nor  the  estate;  but  they  were  his 
legitimate  children.  Why  should  tlie  ministers  of  God's  Word 
allow  such  false  statements  as  Mr  Cruden  .has  made,  to  go 
forth  uncontradicted?  Do  they  wish  to  have  "  Faithful  Abra- 
ham" not  only  shamed  by  one  transgression  of  purity,  but 
thus  branded  with  the  sin  of  polygamy,  to  become  an  example 
and  snare  to  filthy  Mormonism? 

Mr.  Cruden  also  asserts  (see  his  Concordance,  article  Con- 
cubine) that  "  polygamy  was  sometimes  practiced  by  the  patri- 
archs and  among  the  Jews,  either  by  God's  permission,  who 
could  rightly  dispense  with  his  own  laws  when  and  where  he 
pleased," —  etc. 

Is  this  true?  Could  the  righteous  God  have  dispensed  with 
the  punishment  of  Adam,  of  Caiu,  of  tlie  people  of  Sodom,  and 


ABRAHAM. 


47 


forgiven ;  nay,  more,  that  his  position  as 
"Father  of  the  Faithful"  and  Head  of  the 
people  of  Israel  was  affirmed,  and  he  fully 
reinstated  in  all  the  honor  of  God's  favor, 
in  all  the  glory  of  His  love  —  still  Abra- 
ham's sin  was  not  cancelled.  Its  evil  influ- 
ence continued,  and  continues  not  only  in  his 
descendants,  but  on  all  who  ever  heard  his 
name. 

His  example  of  adultery,  or  polygamy,  call  it 
which  you  will  (both  are  one  sin),  has  been  the 
cause  of  sins  of  the  like  kind  from  that  day  to 
this. 

The  example  of  Abraham,  and  that  of  Jacob, 
have  never  ceased  to  do  evil ;  they  have  been 
used  to  excuse  the  licentiousness  of  the  Jewish 
nation ;  to  justify  the  pollutions  of  false  re- 

been  the  righteous  God,  upholding  His  own  laws  of  righteous- 
ness? Where,  then,  was  the  need  of  a  Saviour  for  transgres- 
sion of  His  holy  law  ? 

Is  it  not  remarkable  that  the  plea  for  these  permissions  and 
dispensations  is  always  because  the  carnal  lust  of  men  must 
be  indulged?  Why  not  include  murder,  theft,  false  witness 
and  covetousness  in  this  license?  Are  these  sins  worse  for 
society,  more  corrupting,  more  dishonoring  to  the  Law  of  God, 
than  adultery?  Does  not  this  sin  lead  more  certainly  than 
any  other  forbidden  in  the  second  table,  to  the  utter  jejection 
of  the  true  God  ?  —  to  idolatry  ? 


48 


ABRAHAM. 


ligions,  and  even  to  lower  the  standard  of  mo- 
rals in  tlie  Christian  Church. 

Nor  is  this  fearful  summary  the  worst  of  the 
evil.  The  Word  of  God  has  been  falsely  ac- 
cused of  sanctioning,  or  tolerating,  polygamy, 
and  licentiousness,  because  of  Abraham's  sin ! 


CHAPTER  V. 

JACOB  AND  HIS  SONS. 

IN  the  whole  range  of  Bible  History,  there  are 
no  scenes  connected  with  the  life  of  a  man 
so  inexpressibly  sad  as  the  glimpses  we  have  of 
the  life  of  Jacob. 

The  grandson  of  Abraham,  and  announced  as 
heir  of  the  promise  before  his  birth,  Jacob  was 
led  by  crooked  ways  to  be  the  "  supplanter  "  of 
his  elder  brother,  and  thus  made  him  his  mortal 
foe. 

The  favorite  of  his  mother,  even  the  light  of 
her  eyes,  and  dear  as  the  life-blood  of  her  heart, 
and  returning  her  love  with  most  tender,  rever- 
ential affection,  Jacob  found  himself  compelled, 
by  his  obedience  to  this  devoted  mother,  to  be- 
come a  fugitive  from  his  father's  house,  fleeing, 
like  an  outlaw,  without  follower  or  means  of 
support,  from  the  land  where  his  seed  was  to  be 
a  great  nation. 

His  life,  moreover,  was  in  jeopardy,  and  he 

5  49 


50 


JACOB    AND   HIS  SONS. 


miglit  fear,  on  every  sound  of  the  wind,  to  hear 
tlie  voice  of  tlie  enraged  Esau,  who  was  thirst- 
ing for  his  blood. 

Such  is  the  first  act  of  the  drama. 

Then  comes  the  sweetest  dream  of  his  life  — 
his  deep,  delicious,  almost  delirious  love  for  his 
beautiful  cousin,  Rachel :  and  she,  as  we  gather 
from  the  after  narrative,  returned  his  pure  pas- 
sion with  the  devotion  of  a  loving  woman,  wor- 
thy to  be  the  wife  of  the  man  blessed  of  God, 
who  then  sought  her  in  holy  marriage. 

"And  Jacob  served  seven  years  for  Rachel; 
and  they  seemed  unto  him  but  a  few  days,  for 
the  love  he  had  to  her." —  Genesis  xxix.  20. 

Jacob  had  gone  to  Haran,  where  his  mother's 
brother  Laban  resided,  intending  to  take  a  wife 
—  not  wives —  of  his  own  kindred. 

Jacob  asked  Laban  for  Rachel  only.  He 
served  seven  years  for  Rachel  only,  and  then, 
by  the  selfish  craft  of  the  idolatrous  Laban,  the 
father,  Jacob  was  deceived  into  marrying  Leah, 
the  oldest  daughter,  instead  of  his  darling 
Rachel. 

The  history  shows,  as  plainly  as  truth  can  be 
set  forth,  that  Jacob  had  no  intention  of  marry- 
ing more  than  one  wife,    His  brother  Esau  had 


JACOB   AND    HIS  SONS. 


51 


become  a  polygamist,  and  thereby  sorely  grieved 
the  hearts  of  Isaac  and  Rebekah,  their  parents. 
Would  Jacob  follow  this  evil  example?  No. 
He  was  over  seventy  years  of  age.  The  fancies 
of  youthful,  and  the  fires  of  evil  imaginations 
were  subdued.  He  must  have  known  the  im- 
portance of  a  holy  marriage.  Isaac  and  Re- 
bekah had  enjoined  him  to  take  a  wife.  He 
had  chosen  his  bride,  and  proved  his  constancy 
by  a  seven  years'  servitude  —  and  at  last  be  was 
deceived. 

It  was  hard  to  bear  such  disappointment. 
He  loved  Rachel  with  passionate  desire.  The 
wily,  wicked  Laban  was  ready  with  excuses  and 
persuasions.  Jacob  might  have  Rachel  as  well 
as  Leah ;  "  it  was  the  custom  of  the  country," 
and  those  connections  were  common. 

It  is  scarcely  to  be  wondered  at  that  Jacob, 
in  the  whirlwind  of  passion  and  disappointment, 
yielded  his  conscience  to  the  tempter's  snare, 
and  married  Rachel  in  one  short  week  after  his 
forced  union  with  the  hated  Leah.  He  thus 
became  the  serf  of  the  selfish  Laban  for  another 
seven  years ;  but  he  served  these  for  Rachel. 

So  ended  the  second  act  of  the  drama. 

Jacob  had  now  two  wives,  and  if  such  arrange- 


52 


JACOB  AND  HIS  SONS. 


ments  can  ever  be  excused,  lie  surely  might 
claim  exemption  from  any  great  wrong-doing. 
He  had  been,  as  we  have  seen,  entrapped  into 
the  connection.  His  wives  were  sisters  —  had 
been  brought  up  together ;  could  they  not  live 
lovingly, with  him  and  with  each  other? 

Alas !  there  is  no  peace  for  the  transgressor 
of  God's  primal  law  of  marriage.  The  avenging 
Nemesis  is  in  the  household  of  every  polygamist. 

Jacob's  home  was  made  miserable  by  the  bit- 
ter envyings  and  jealousies  of  the  rival  sister- 
wives,  till  his  almost  idolized  Rachel  could  up- 
braid him  as  the  cause  of  her  wretchedness. 

"And  Jacob's  anger  was  kindled  against 
Eachel." 

What  untold  agonies  of  sorrow  and  of  sin  are 
in  that  one  brief  revelation ! 

But  there  are  darker  shades  on  this  family 
picture ;  and  deeper  iniquities,  revenges,  and 
pollutions,  when  the  rival  wives,  to  spite  each 
other,  urge  on  Jacob  their  handmaidens  as  con- 
cubines. 

Here  we  see  the  influence  of  Sarah's  bad  ex- 
ample in  regard  to  Hagar.  Nor  had  Jacob, 
like  Abraham,  an  oi)portunity  of  freeing  him- 
self from  these  trammels  of  sin.    Jacob  could 


JACOB   AND   HIS  SONS. 


53 


not  send  away  his  paramours.  He  was  in  an 
enemy's  land,  as  we  may  say,  closely  watched 
by  Lahan  and  his  sons,  who,  by  thus  entangling 
the  heir  of  the  promise  in  these  unholy  con- 
nections, held  him  like  a  captive  in  their 
service. 

The  inspired  limner,  who,  by  a  few  sharp, 
strong,  dark  touches,  has  given  us  the  revolting 
image  of  Jacob's  home-life  in  Mesopotamia,  has 
shown  that  the  law  of  monogamy  is  as  neces- 
sary for  the  happiness  of  men  as  it  is  for  their 
purity  and  the  comfort  of  their  families. 

Thus  closes  the  third  act  of  this  life-drama. 

And  now  Jacob,  with  his  four  women  and 
eleven  sons,  has  left  that  corrupting  land  of 
idolatry.  He  is  safely  settled  in  Canaan,  the 
possession  that  God  has  promised  to  his  seed. 

True,  his  beloved  Rachel  is  dead,  and  he  has 
mourned  for  her  as  the  bereaved  husband  only 
mourns  for  "  the  wife  of  his  bosom,"  his  true 
companion.  He  should  weep  her  death,  yet  it 
frees  him  from  the  living  sin  of  bigamy,  and 
he  will  no  longer  be  saddened  by  her  repinings 
that  he  cannot  give  her  what  was  her  right  — 
the  right  of  every  true  wife  —  the  whole  care, 
and  tenderness,  and  love  of  her  husband.  Will 

6* 


54 


JACOB  AND   HIS  SONS. 


not  domestic  peace,  if  not  liapj)iness,  now  be 
his? 

No !  his  sins  have  poisoned  the  fountain  of 
home  happiness  by  destroying  the  oneness  which 
children  of  the  same  mother  can  never  wholly 
put  off.  His  sons  have  been  trained  in  that 
hell  of  domestic  discord  and  license,  the  home 
of  the  polygamist.  Cruel,  treacherous,  selfish, 
lustful  and  disobedient,  hating  Joseph,  whom 
Jacob,  for  Eachel's  sake,  cherishes  with  ex- 
ceeding tenderness,  the  six  sons  of  his  hated 
wife',  and  the  four  unlawful  sons  of  the  old 
patriarch,  are  the  curse  of  his  life ;  and  his  only 
daughter  —  Leah's  daughter  —  what  is  she? 

Had  Jacob  been  allowed  to  marry  Rachel 
only,  at  the  first,  as  he  intended,  and  had  he 
lived  with  her  in  chaste  and  happy  wedlock, 
what  a  different  life  would  his  have  been ! 
"Wniiat  miseries  he  would  have  escaped !  And 
what  a  superior  race  of  sons  would  have  de- 
scended from  him ! 

As  it  is,  no  one  can  study  Jewish  history 
without  tracing  the  bad  blood  of  Jacob's  concu- 
bines, and  the  wicked  passions  of  the  hated 
Leah,  in  the  selfish,  sensual,  stiff-necked,  rebel- 
lious, and  idolatrous  Hebrew  people. 


JACOB  AND  HIS  SONS. 


55 


Poor,  sufiferiiig  Jacob !  What  scene  described 
in  Greek  tragedy  ever  equalled,  in  sorrowful 
pathos,  the  cry  of  the  heart-broken  father,  when 
his  ten  wicked  sons,  who  had  plotted  the  mur- 
der of  their  half-brother  Joseph,  and  had  sold 
him  into  Egyptian  bondage,  stood  before  the 
old  patriarch  with  the  coat  of  many  colors," 
torn  and  bloody,  in  their  hands,  and  a  lie  on 
their  lips,  believing  which,  he  exclaimed,  in  his 
agony, 

"  It  is  my  son's  coat ;  an  evil  beast  hath  de- 
voured him;  Joseph  is  without  doubt  rent  in 
pieces. 

"I  will  go  down  into  the  grave  unto  my  son, 
mourning." — Genesis  xxxvii. 

Thus  ended  the  fourth  act. 

And  now  the  curtain  is  about  to  fall  on  a  life 
of  brilliant  j)romise,  of  sore  temptations,  of  sad 
yieldings  to  sin,  and  of  many  sorrows.  In  every 
case  the  fruits  of  Jacob's  transgressions  fur- 
nished the  means  of  his  punishment. 

Poor  old  Jacob !  Well  might  he  make  that 
pathetic  complaint  to  Pharaoh  : 

"  Few  and  evil  have  been  the  days  of  the 
years  of  my  life." 

Except  the  days  of  his  youth,  and  the  first 


56 


JACOB   AND   HIS  SONS. 


seven  years  he  served  for  Rachel,  there  seems 
no  period  of  happiness  in  the  life  of  Jacob. 

Why  was  this  ?  lie  was  the  chosen  of  the 
Most  High.  He  was,  too,  a  devout  believer  in 
the  Lord.  From  the  time  he  lay  down  on  his 
pillow  of  stones,  and  saw  the  "  ladder  set  up  on 
the  earth,  and  the  top  of  it  reached  to  Heaven," 
he  never  swerved  from  the  worship  of  the  true 
God. 

Why  was  Jacob  subjected  to  so  much  do- 
mestic misery  ?  Why,  unless  he  had  sinned  in 
transgressing  God's  law  of  marriage,  was  his  pun- 
ishment through  and  by  his  wives  and  children  ? 

If  his  example  were  right,  or  even  "  toler- 
ated "  by  the  Lord,  why  was  J acob's  existence, 
wherever  he  went,  made  wretched  by  the  dark 
influences  of  polygamy  ?  Its  avenging  presence 
was  ever  tracking  his  path  of  life ;  its  sj^iritual 
shadows  haunted  even  his  bed  of-death. —  (See 
Genesis  xlix.) 

His  sons  are  all  gathering  around  him ;  his 
beloved  Joseph  is  found ;  and,  though  Jacob  is 
dying  in  Egypt,  far  away  from  the  Canaan  of 
promise,  where  Rachel's  dust  reposes,  yet  he 
holds  fast  his  faith  in  God,  and  is  sure  of  the 
inheritance  for  his  posterity. 


JACOB   AND   HIS  SONS. 


57 


Would  not  Jacob,  in  giving  his  farewell  bless- 
ing to  liis  sons,  have  blotted  out,  if  it  had  been 
possible,  their  evil  doings  from  his  memory  and 
his  speech  ? 

But  he  could  not ;  the  dark  phantoms  of  in- 
cest, of  blood,  of  treachery,  cruelty,  and  selfish- 
ness, were  there ;  and  the  crimes  and  miseries 
that  would  overtake  his  descendants  Avere  visible 
to  the  failing  vision  of  the  dying  patriarch. 

In  this  remarkable  foreshadowing  of  events, 
there  are  truths  of  vital  importance  to  Chris- 
tianity, which  seem  to  have  been  strangely  over- 
looked by  expositors  of  Genesis.  The  old  patri- 
arch virtually  acknowledges  God's  primal  law 
of  marriage,  and  condemns  as  evil,  his  house- 
hold life.  It  was  his  high  prerogative  to  de- 
clare his  successor  in  the  promised  covenant 
that  madetlie  Hebrews  God's  chosen  people. 

Jacob  passed  over  his  first-born,  Reuben, 
whose  wickedness  —  only  possible  in  harem  life 
—  could  not  be  tolerated.  He  rejected  Simeon 
and  Levi  for  their  blood-guiltiness  and  treach- 
ery. Judah,  the  fourth  son  of  Leah,  Jacob's 
hated  wife,  stands  before  his  father's  prophetic 
intuitions.  Judah  was  an  unrighteous  man, 
and  had  been  an  undutiful  son.    He  joined  in 


68 


JACOB  AND  HIS  SONS. 


the  plots  and  lies  against  Joseph.  Why,  then, 
did  Judah  come  before  Joseph,  the  eldest  son 
of  the  beloved  Rachel?  —  the  good  son,  the 
great  man,  whose  wisdom  had  saved  Egypt,  who 
at  that  time  held  sway  over  its  destinies  !  —  Jo- 
seph, who  had  saved  his  father  and  brothers 
from  death,  and  given  them  possessions  in  the 
richest  country  on  earth !  Did  not  Joseph's 
dreams  foreshadow  his  glory  ?  And,  had  his 
mother  been  the  true  wife,  would  not  Joseph 
have  been  Jacob's  choice  as  the  lawgiver  to 
whom  "  his  brethren  should  bow  down"  ?  * 

Can  any  Christian  man  read  over  the  history 
of  Jacob's  twelve  sons,  and  not  feel  his  mind,  as 
well  as  his  heart,  drawn  to  this  preference  for 
Joseph?  Jacob  saw  that  this  choice  could  not 
be  permitted  —  that  Joseph  was  not  his  legiti- 
mate son.  Jacob  had  been  cheated  into  the 
marriage  with  the  elder  sister,  while  the  younger 
was  his  betrothed  wife.  Jacob,  in  his  passionate 
desire  to  gain  the  beautiful  Rachel,  had  fool- 
ishly yielded  to  the  crafty  Laban,  and  consented 
to  fulfil  the  wedded  week,  and  her  sons  were  the 
true  heirs  to  the  spiritual  oflfices.    Judah  ob- 

*  Jacob  did  give  Joseph  a  double  portion  in  the  possession 
of  Canaan.  —  Genesis  Ixviii.  22. 


JACOB  AND   HIS  SONS. 


59 


tained  the  high  honor  of  lawgiver  to  the  He-, 
brews,  and  standard-bearer  of  the  Covenanted 
Promise,  "  until  Shiloh  come." 

Then,  as  if  to  mark  more  emphatically  his 
faith  in  God,  and  his  submission  to  God's  right- 
eous law  of  marriage,  the  dying  patriarch  gave 
this  last  charge  to  his  twelve  sons : 

"  Bury  me  with  my  fathers,  in  the  cave  that 
is  in  the  field  of  Ephron  the  Hittite.  There 
they  buried  Abraham  and  Sarah  his  wife ;  there 
they  buried  Isaac  and  Rebekah,  his  wife ;  and 
there  I  buried  Leah." 

That  Jacob  thus  recognized  Leah  as  his  true 
wife  —  his  only  lawful  wife  —  is  plain. 

In  Jacob's  character  the  religious  element 
predominated.  Faith  in  God,  and  trust  in  the 
Divine  promises,  seem  inwoven  with  every  fibre 
of  his  nature.  His  affections  were  deep  and 
tender  as  a  woman's ;  when  kindled  to  pas- 
sionate love  they  overmastered  his  understand- 
ing. Hence  he  was  led  by  the  persuasions  of 
love,  or  moved  by  pity  for  others,  into  acts  and 
admissions  that  his  conscience  could  never  have 
approved.  Thus,  before  the  world,  he  often 
halted  between  two  opinions,  loving  the  good 
and  following  the  evil ;  but  he  never  faltered  in 


60 


JACOB  AND   HIS  SONS. 


his  faitli  and  trust  in  the  living  God.  As 
when  Jacob  wrestled  for  the  blessing,  and  pre- 
vailed, so  was  it  when  the  Angel  of  Death 
came  near  and  freed  his  troubled  soul  from  its 
earthly  fetters.  "As  a  prince  having  power 
with  God,"  he  rose  to  his  upright  integrity. 
He  confessed  his  sins,  and  accepted  their  pun- 
ishment, by  acknowledging  Leah,  the  hated,  as 
his  only  wife,  and  placing  her  son,  Judah,  lord 
over  his  brethren.  Thus  the  righteousness  of 
the  Bible  Law  of  Marriage  is  vindicated  and 
established  by  the  .patriarch's  authority. 

Was  not  the  Providence  of  God  which 
caused  Rachel,  the  beloved,  to  be  buried  apart 
from  Jacob,  a  proof  that  she  was  not  his  wife  ? 
Had  Rachel's  dust  reposed  in  that  cave  of  the 
patriarchs,  by  the  side  of  Leah,  would  not  this 
have  been  urged  as  a  proof  that  a  plurality  of 
wives  was  allowed  by  the  chosen  founders  of  the 
Jewish  Church  ? 

Thanks  be  to  God  that  the  faithful  Jacob  has 
left  this  record  of  his  repentance  of  sin  and  his 
reverence  for  duty.  He  thus  taught  his  sons  to 
honor  God's  Primal  Law  of  Marriage,  and  to 
obey  the  letter  of  this  law.  There  is  no  ex- 
ample in  Hebrew  history,  from  this  time  forth, 


JACOB  AND   HIS  SONS. 


61 


of  a  plurality  of  wives,  until  tlie  time  of  the 
Judges,  a  period  of  more  tlian  five  hundred 
years. 

Embold£ned  by  the  sneers  of  infidels,  who 
always  hold  up  the  sins  and  errors  of  those  men 
that  Bible  history  has  distinguished  as  leaders 
in  the  cause  of  God's  truth,  wicked  impostors 
come  forward,  in  the  light  of  this  nineteenth 
century,  and  claim  Abraham  and  Jacob  as  the 
Founders  of  Polygamy  in  the  Church  of  the  First 
Covenant. 

I  appeal  to  the  evidence  of  the  Bible,  which 
I  have  faithfully  and  fully  stated,  and  deny  the 
foul  imj)utation. 

It  may  as  reasonably  be  asserted  that,  because 
Abraham  and  Isaac  were  both  guilty  of  un- 
truths, or  prevarications,  regarding  Sarah  and 
Rebekah  (see  Genesis  xii.  13 ;  xx.  2 ;  xxvi.  7, 
8),  that,  .therefore,  falsehood  was,  by  the  ex- 
ample of  the  patriarchs,  established  as  right, 
when  thought  to  be  convenient. 

We  should  never  forget  that  the  Word  of 
God  is  the  record  of  truth,  and  therefore  sets 
forth  evil  as  well  as  good  in  the  lives  of  the 
founders  of  the  Church  ;  but  the  evil  is  nowhere 
represented  as  the  good. 

6 


62 


JACOB   AND   niS  SONS. 


That  neither  Abraham  nor  Jacob  considered 
polygamy  or  concnbinage  riglit,  is  proved,  be- 
cause neither  had  designed  sach  connections  ; 
both  were  persuaded  into  the  sin; -to  both  it 
brought  great  evils  and  miseries,  and  neither  of 
them  allowed  it  to  their  sons. 

Isaac  was  a  strict  monogamist ;  his  example 
of  true  marriage  was,  and  is  to  this  day,  the 
pride  and  glory  of  the  Hebrew  people,  who 
always  bless  the  young  married  couple  by  wish- 
^  ing  them  to  be  "  like  Isaac  and  Rebekah." 

Wliy  was  this  custom  practiced,  unless  the 
union  of  these  two,  the  one  man  and  one  woman 
of  the  primal  law,  was  known  to  be  the  right 
way  ? 

And  though  the  sons  of  Jacob  were  all;  save 
Joseph  and  Benjamin,  most  grievous  sinners  in 
many  ways,  yet  none  of  them  were  polygamists; 
all  adhered  to  the  system  of  Isaac. 

Thus,  of  the  fifteen  progenitors  of  the  He- 
brew people,  from  Abraham  to  Benjamin,  but 
two  ever  lived  in  the  open  transgression  of 
God's  primal  law  of  marriage ;  and  the  law  of 
Divine  Providence  punished  this  great  sin  of 
Abraham  and  of  Jacob  in  most  notable  in- 
stances, and  with  terrible  sufferings. 


CHAPTER  VI. 


THE  GIVING  OF  THE  LAW. 

WE  stand  before  Mount  Sinai. 
Here  the  Lord  God  descended,  and, 
amid  "  thunders  and  lightnings,"  and  from  the 
"thick  cloud  covering  the  mountain,"  He  in- 
structed Moses  in  those  fundamental  laws  which, 
from  that  day  to  this,  in  righteousness  and  for 
righteousness,  are  binding  on  all  mankind.  Let 
us,  in  brief,  recapitulate  these  laws. 

1.  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  me. 

2.  Thou  shalt  not  make  nor  worship  any 
graven  image. 

3.  Thou  shalt  not  take  the  name  of  the 
Lord  thy  God  in  vain. 

4.  Remember  the  Sabbath  day,  to  keep  it 
holy. 

5.  Honor  thy  father  and  thy  mother. 

6.  Thou  shalt  do  no  murder. 

7.  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery. 

8.  Thou  shalt  not  steal. 

6g 


64 


THE   GIVING  OF  THE  LAW. 


9.  Tliou  slialt  not  bear  false  •witness. 
10.  Thou  slialt  not  covet  what  is  thy  neigh- 
bor's. 

Such  were  the  Laws  given  at  Mount  Sinai, 
two  thousand  five  hundred  and  thirteen  years 
after  Adam  was  created. 

Did  the  Creator,  on  Mount  Sinai,  promulgate 
new  laws  for  the  human  race  ?  or  did  He  em- 
body in  this  Divine  Code,  called  the  Moral 
Law,  those  fundamental  truths  and  ideas 
which,  of  necessity,  were  and  are  incorporated 
in  human  nature,  and  which  ought  to  con- 
trol the  inner  and  the  outer  life  of  immor- 
tal beings,  "  made  in  the  image  of  God,"  and 
created  for  happiness  if  they  obey  these 
laws  ? 

Our  reasoning  faculties,  as  well  as  our  re- 
ligious feelings,  instinctively,  we  may  say,  affirm 
the  last  proposition. 

"Would  any  man  of  sound  mind  and  just 
judgment,  to  whom  these  questions  were  fairly 
stated,  contend  that,  on  Mount  Sinai,  God  gave 
new  laws  to  men  ?  laws  more  stringently  pure, 
holy,  and  righteous,  than  governed  human  na- 
ture before  the  fall  ? 

Suppose  God  had  done  this,  would  fallen 


THE  GIVING  OF  THE  LAW. 


65 


man  have  had  faculties  to  discern  the  righteous- 
ness of  such  laws  ? 

Does  not  the  sinfulness  of  disobedience,  and 
the  justice  of  punishment,  rest  on  the  universal 
belief,  nay,  conscious  knowledge,  that  the  re- 
quirements of  the  Moral  Law  are  good  and 
right,  and  adapted  to  the  nature  of  man  ? 

And  who  but  believes  that  man  had,  origi- 
nally, what  he  has  now,  capacities  or  faculties, 
to  which  these  requirements  are  addressed  ?  and 
by  which  he  can  comprehend  his  duty  of  obe- 
dience ? 

I  affirm  boldly  that  the  "  Ten  Command- 
ments of  God,"  given  on  Mount  Sinai,  and  em- 
bodied, and  set  forth  by  Moses  to  the  children 
of  Israel,  then  God's  chosen  people,  to  keep  His 
righteousness  known  on  earth,  were  the  identical 
laws  to  which  Adam,  as  created  in  the  image  of 
God,  and  all  his  race,  were  amenable. 

Had  there  been  no  transgression,  no  law 
would  have  been  felt,  because  no  punishment 
would  have  been  needed.  Obedience  to  God 
fulfils  the  whole  law. 

When  Adam  disobeyed,  he  introduced  sin 
into  the  world,  and  punishment  followed,  thus 
revealing  the  law  of  God  that  condemns  sin ; 

6* 


66  THE   GIVIXG   OF   THE  LAW. 


but  the  sin  did  not  enact  the  law ;  that  was  in 
existence  before  the  offence,  or  there  would  have 
been  no  offence. 

And  so  of  all  these  Ten  Commandments ; 
each  one,  as  it  is  violated,  brings  its  punish- 
ment, inflicted  by  Divine  Justice  always,  though 
usually  by  or  through  human  agency. 

Thus  the  earthquake  and  the  fire  punished 
miraculously,  so  to  speak,  the  rebellion  of  Ko- 
rah  and  his  followers ;  but  the  after  rebellions 
of  the  Israelites  against  th?  Lord  were  punished 
by  natural  agencies  and  means,  such  as  wars, 
pestilences,  famines,  and  other  evils. 

Yet  were  not  these  evils  ordained  of  God, 
and  the  result  of  His  immutable  laws  against 
sin,  as  truly  as  the  destruction  of  Korah  ? 

The  common  law,  governing  created  man 
from  the  "beginning,"  as  the  lex  non  scripta 
of  God,  was,  in  the  Ten  Commandments,  re- 
vealed and  written  down,  thus  becoming  the  lex 
scripta  —  the  moral  law.  That  is  the  whole 
matter. 

What  was  forbidden  on  Mount  Sinai  was  sin 
to  Adam  just  as  surely  as  to  Moses.  ISIurder 
was  always  sin  per  se ;  and  so  was  adultery, 
theft,  and  all  the  other  prohibited  actions,  and 


THE  GIVING  OF  THE  LAW. 


67 


are  so  proven  by  tlie  Divine  punishments  in- 
flicted on  transgressors. 

On  what  other  ground  can  the  condemnation 
and  punishment  of  Cain  be  considered  right- 
eous?— or  the  punishment  of  the  Antediluvians,  ' 
the  Sodomites,  or  the  Canaanites,  be  justified? 

None  of  tliese  people  had  the  Law  as  revealed 
on  Mount  Sinai ;  the  only  Divine  law  controlling 
them  was  thus  described  by  St.  Paul  in  his 
Epistle  to  the  Romans : 

"  For  the  invisible  things  of  Him  (or  God) 
from  the  creation  of  the  world,  are  clearly  seen, 
being  understood  by  the  things  that  are  made, 
even  His  eternal  power  and  Godhead ;  so  that 
they  are  without  excuse  : 

"  Because  that,  v/hen  they  knew  God,  they 
glorified  Him  not  as  God,  neither  were  thank- 
ful ;  but  became  vain  in  their  imaginations,  and 
their  foolish  heart  was  darkened. 

"  Professing  themselves  to  be  wise,  they  be- 
came fools." — Romans  i.  20-22. 

And  again  St.  Paul  says  (see  Romans  ii.  12- 
16),  in  effect,  that  to  those  who  do  right,  and 
keep  the  law,  whether  they  know  it,  or  do  not 
know  it  as  the  law  of  God,  it  is  the  law  of  con- 
science implanted  by  the  Creator;  and  their 


68 


THE  GIVING  OF  THE  LAW. 


own  hearts,  tliougli  they  have  no  revealed 
law,  witness  to  themselves  of  the  true  and  the 
good. 

So  Cain  knew  that  to  kill  his  brother  was 
sin ;  and  so  the  polygamists  of  the  old  world 
knew  that  marriage  was  one  man  with  one 
woman  ;  that  the  sexes  were  born  in  equal  num- 
bers, and,  therefore,  to  multiply  wives  was  to 
transgress  the  law  of  nature  —  the  primal  law 
of  God  to  man. 

Polygamy  is  adultery,  because  there  is  not, 
never  was,  and  never  can  be,  true  marriage, 
except  of  one  man  with  one  woman. 

Thus  only  can  the  twain  become  one.  Thus 
only  did  God  bless  the  union  of  the  sexes. 

It  is  God's  law  that  has  continued  the  ratio 
of  increase  between  men  and  women,  in  strict 
conformity  with  the  law  of  monogamy. 

"  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery," 
thundered  from  Mount  Sinai,  was  the  law  that 
condemned  and  punished  the  licentiousness  of 
the  old  world,  the  concubinage  of  Abraham, 
and  the  polygamy  of  Jacob.  It  condemned  and 
jiunishcd  all  transgressions  of  a  like  kind  re- 
corded throughout  the  Bible  history,  as  we  shall 
see  in  the  following  cha])ters.    And  it  has  con- 


THE  GIVING   OF  THE  LAW. 


tinned  to  condemn  and  punish  every  infraction 
of  its  holy  prohibition  among  heatlien  or  Chris- 
tian nations,  in  all  ages,  through  all  time  to  the 
present  hour ;  from  the  "  Cities  of  the  Plain  "  to 
the  "  City  of  Salt  Lake" ! 

The  Israelites  well  understood  its  meaning. 
They  had  been  educated  monogamists.  Neither 
Abraham  nor  Jacob  had  set  up  a  new  rule  of 
marriage ;  they  had  transgressed  the  primal 
law,  and  suffered  for  the  transgression. 

Isaac  and  Rebekah  was  the  conjugal  example 
for  the  Hebrew  people. 

The  number  of  Jacob's  descendants  that  went 
down  with  him  into  Egypt,  shows  that  all  had 
kept  this  law.  His  descendants  numbered 
sixty-six ;  viz.,  eleven  sons  and  one  daughter, 
fifty  grandchildren,  and  four  great-grandchil- 
dren. The  eldest  of  Jacob's  sons,  Reuben,  was 
about  forty-six  years  of  age ;  Benjamin,  the 
youngest,  was  thirty,  or  upwards.  All  were 
married,  and  two  of  Jacob's  grandsons  were 
married  ;  all  had  children,  but  the  average  was 
only  four  children  for  each  family. 

Joseph  had  married,  in  Egypt,  one  wife  only; 
for  the  law  of  monogamy  was  then  as  rigid  in 
the  land  of  the  Nile  as  it  was,  long  afterwards, 


70 


THE  GIVING  OF   THE  LAW. 


in  the  Seven-hilled  City,  during  the  best  ages 
of  the  Roman  Republic. 

According  to  Herodotus,  the  women  of  an- 
cient Egypt  were  equal,  if  not  superior,  in  au- 
thority to  the  men.  The  chief  divinity  of  the 
Egyptians  was  Isis,  and  this  goddess  was  favor- 
able to  her  own  sex.  Neither  polygamy  nor 
concubinage  was  allowed,  and  the  chastity  of 
maidens  was  protected  by  a  law  of  the  severest 
kind  against  their  seducers. 

Herodotus  asserts  that,  in  the  marriage  con- 
tract, the  husband  promised  obedience  to  the 
wife ;  that  daughters  had  the  right  of  inherit- 
ance or  succession  to  the  estates  of  their  parents  ; 
and  also  that,  should  the  parents  become  indi- 
geut,  it  was  on  their  daughters  they  depended 
for  support.  In  short,  honor,  respect,  and  pro- 
tection to  women  was  the  law  and  the  custom 
in  ohl  Egypt. 

The  Bible  corroborates  the  assertions  of  the 
Greek  historian.  Potiphar's  wife  had  certainly 
the  largest  liberty.  Pharaoh's  daughter  seems 
to  have  been  as  free  to  follow  her  own  inclina- 
tions and  judgment  as  any  American  lady  would 
now  desire — far  more  free  to  order  her  own  con- 
duct than  would  be  a  princess  royal  of  England. 


THE   GIVING   or   THE  LAW. 


71 


King  Solomon's  Egyptian  wife  was  always 
treated  with  the  highest  respect,  as  though  that 
was  her  birthright,  and  the  long-venerated  cus- 
tom of  her  country. 

The  one -wife  system  is  also  proved  to  have 
been  the  Egyptian  law,  by  the  memorials  of 
that  remarkable  people  still  extant,  the  hiero- 
glyphical  inscriptions,  and  every  ascertained 
habit  of  the  national  life. 

Nor  can  we  doubt  that  to  this  wise  adherence 
to  the  law  of  creation  they  owed  much  of  the 
wonderful  progress  they  made  in  wealth,  order,  ^ 
and  civilization.  Arts,  science,  philosophy,  and 
learning,  are  rarely  cultivated  where  men  are 
at  liberty  to  lead  a  life  of  sensuality. 

The  curb  of  restraint  must  be  laid  upon  the 
animal  passions  before  the  understanding  can 
mature  its  strength,  and  the  intellect  develop 
its  subtle  perception  of  abstract  ideas,  and  its 
latent  power  over  immaterial  or  imaginary  cre- 
ations. Then,  on  reaching  that  empyrean 
height,  Genius  seizes  in  one  hand  the  thought 
that  lifts  the  reason  of  man  to  the  region  of 
duty  and  honor,  and  in  the  other  hand  she 
bears  aloft  the  light  that  guides  nations  to 
patriotism  and  glory. 


72 


THE  GIVING  OF   THE  LAW. 


Polygamy  is  like  a  wasting  fever — a  witlier- 
ing  miasma  on  tlie  moral  purpose  and  mental 
energy  of  the  individual  man  ;  it  consumes  liis 
vitality  of  soul ;  it  gives  predominance  to  the 
animal,  and  thus  effectually  hinders  the  mate- 
rial progress  and  intellectual  greatness  of  a 
people. 

It  was,  therefore,  a  most  merciful  arrangement 
of  Divine  Providence  that  placed  the  descend- 
ants of  Jacob,  during  their  tutelage,  in  the  care 
of  a  nation  where  the  primal  law  of  the  true 
God  was  obeyed.  This  important  fact  has 
never,  as  I  can  find,  been  taken  into  account  by 
any  commentator  on  the  Bible. 

Another,  and,  probably,  a  more  powerful  re- 
straint upon  immorality  among  the  Hebrews 
while  in  bondage,  must  have  been  the  example 
of  Joseph, 

Was  not  his  history  preserved  in  the  heart 
of  that  waiting,  wearied,  weeping  people,  as 
they  toiled  for  their  hard  taskmasters  beneath 
the  burning  sun  of  Egypt?  What  a  history  to 
insjjire  faith  in  God,  and  impose  restraint  on 
carnal  lust,  was  the  simple  narrative  of  Joseph's 
temptation  and  triumph  in  the  house  of  Poti- 
phar ! 


THE   GIVING   OF  THE  LAW. 


73 


Why  is  it  that  the  heroism  of  duty,  which 
Joseph  so  nobly  exemplified,  has  not  been  held 
UJ3  by  the  priesthood  to  the  admiration  of  man, 
and  to  the  justification  of  God  from  the  charge 
of  sanctioning  lust  ? 

Joseph  had  but  one  ordeal  of  trial — one  test 
applied  to  his  character ;  but  that  test  included 
all  the  elements  of  honor,  truth,  purity,  and 
piety.  If  he  proved  that  he  could  withstand 
that  temptation  to  sensual  sin,  he  was  safe. 

The  fate  of  Egypt,  of  Israel,  of  the  world 
even,  hung  on  his  reply  to  the  solicitation  of 
his  master's  wife : 

"  Lie  with  me." 

"How  can  I  do  this  great  wickedness,  and 
sin  against  God  ?  "  was  the  reply  of  the  youth. 

How  did  Joseph  know  that  this  conduct  was 
"  8171  against  God  "  f  No  positive  enactment 
forbidding  any  crime,  save  murder,  had,  at  that 
time,  been  put  forth  by  Johovah. 

If  the  law  of  Eden  had  not  made  the  union 
of  husband  and  wife  sacred,  and  if  this  knowl- 
edge was  not  implanted  in  the  human  con- 
science, and  particularly  known  to  those  who 
served  God,  why  should  the  idea  of  sin  against 
7 


« 


74  THE   GIVING  OF  THE  LAW. 

the  Creator  have  ever  been  awakened  in  the 
mind  of  any  man  on  this  account? 

Joseph's  answer  and  conduct,  in  this  sore 
temptation,  throw  a  favorable  light  on  the  pa- 
ternal character  of  Jacob.  We  see  that  the  old 
patriarch  was  not  corrupted  in  conscience  by 
the  evil  customs  of  his  life ;  that  this  favorite 
son  was  favorite  because  he  was  the  son  of  the 
chosen  wife,  whose  first-born  should  have  been 
heir  of  the  promise.  Alas  !  by  the  father's  lack 
of  self-control,  this  noble  son  had  sufiered  loss 
and  degradation.  Probably,  from  Jacob's  own 
self-reproach,  he  had  been  more  tenderly  care- 
ful to  instruct  Joseph  in  the  laws  of  the  Lord, 
and  in  the  duty  of  obedience. 

And  that  law,  was  it  not  the  same  in  essence 
as  the  Moral  Law  promulgated  on  Mount  Sinai? 

It  will  be  seen,  by  examining  the  Command- 
ments in  full,  that  no  penalties  were  threatened, 
except  in  the  Third  Commandment. 

The  Lord  God  only  gave  the  emphatic  pro- 
hibition, "  Thou  shall  not^^  to  certain  modes  of 
feeling,  thought,  speech,  and  action,  which 
might  arise  among  the  human  race.  These 
forbidden  modes  are  represented  in  their  ele- 
mentary state;  each  Commandment  being,  as 


THE   GIVING   OF   THE  LAW. 


75 


it  were,  the  genus  from  which  species  and  va- 
rieties of  sins  may  be  formed ;  but  all  of  a 
likeness,  or  similitude,  with  the  parent  trans- 
gression. 

Thus  murder  includes  all  attempts  to  injure 
or  destroy  the  physical  life  of  man  or  woman. 

Adultery,  in  like  manner,  includes  all  trans- 
gressions against  chastity,  in  man  or  woman, 
and  all  breaches  of  the  marriage  covenant, 
either  by  husband  or  by  wife. 

The  Lord  God  left  the  punishments,  inflicted 
in  this  life  for  transgressions  of  His  moral  law, 
to  be  provided  for  by  the  laws  of  men,  guiding 
them,  however,  by  those  statutes  which  Moses 
was  inspired  to  frame  for  the  government  of  the 
Hebrew  people. 

Here  we  must  carefully  make  a  distinction 
between  the  statutes  based  on  the  moral  law 
and  those  other  laws,  framed  by  the  Hebrew 
lawgiver  for  a  temporary  purpose;  that  is,  to 
keep  the  Hebrews  a  distinct  and  separate 
people,  which  laws  were  to  be  abrogated  when 
the  Messiah  should  come. 

To  this  last  class  belong  all  the  laws  concern- 
ing the  Levitical  priesthood ;  the  laws  of  in- 
heritance ;  of  leprosy ;  of  food ;  in  short,  the 


76 


THE   GIVING   OF  THE  LATV. 


ceremonial  and  ritual  and  political  laws  of 
Moses. 

But  the  ,  other  statutes,  based  on  the  moral 
law,  and  given  to  restrain  iniquity,  and  guide 
mankind  in  the  way  of  holiness,  are  binding  on 
the  human  race.  These  are  the  laws  of  God  for 
men  —  not  of  Moses  for  the  Israelites. 

In  the  interpretation  of  this  Divine  code,  the 
death -punishment  was,  chiefly,  to  be  inflicted 
for  three  classes  of  crimes :  idolatry,  or  treason 
to  God;  murder,  or  malicious  destruction  of 
human  life;  and  adultery,  or  unchastity  in 
many  forms.  Offences  against  property  were 
never  punished  with  death. 

But  the  death -punishment  was  inflicted  for 
adultery  as  sternly  as  for  murder.  Indeed, 
there  was,  apparently,  more  care  taken  to  guard 
the  purity  of  the  marriage-bed  and  the  honor 
of  women  than  to  prevent  crimes  against  hu- 
man life. 

The  different  crimes  enumerated  in  the  Mo- 
saic law,  and  punishable  with  death,  are,  in  a 
greater  measure,  the  result  of  disobedience  to 
the  Seventh  Commandment  than  to  the  Sixth. 

For  eight  of  these  different  kinds  of  trans- 
gressions against  the  Seventh  Commandment 


THE  GIVING  OF  THE  LAW.  77 


men  were  to  suffer  deatli,  and  women  for  six ; 
thus  showing  that  the  weaker  sex  was  the  least 
culpable. 

A  larger  number  of  sins  of  unholy  lust  are 
enumerated,  forbidden,  or  punished  by  milder 
forms  than  death ;  but  in  all  these  the  man  is 
represented  as  a  greater  sinner  than  the  woman. 

Is  not  this  significant,  that  no  latitude  of  con- 
struction, as  regards  the  Seventh  Commandment, 
was  allowed  to  the  men  of  Israel  ? 

Purity  of  morals,  which  always  exalts  woman, 
was  more  sedulously  guarded  by  the  statutes  of 
Moses  than  was  property,  or  even  life.  Would 
this  have  been  the  case  if  such  an  institution  as 
a  plurality  of  wives  had  been  permitted  or  con- 
templated as  the  right  of  men  ? 

Is  not  the  Seventh  Commandment  of  the  Deca- 
logue as  binding  on  man  as  on  woman  ?  Did 
not  the  people  of  Israel,  as  they  heard  the  com- 
mand, thus  comprehend  its  meaning? 

The  priesthood  must  bring  better  proofs  and 
stronger  reasons  than  they  have  yet  advanced, 
before  they  will  succeed  in  demoralizing  the 
whole  Decalogue,  which  must  assuredly  follow, 
if  it  can  be  proved  that  the  Seventh  Command- 
ment is  not  to  be  understood  in  its  literal  sense, 


78 


THE   GIVIKG  OF  THE  LAW. 


and  tliat  it  means  one  thing  for  a  man,  and 
quite  another  thing  for  a  woman. 

Why  may  not  all  the  Commandments  be  thus 
interpreted  ?  Vfhj  may  not  one  class  of  men, 
namely,  patriots  and  philanthropists,  have  the 
privilege  of  committing  murder  when  it  suits 
their  good  purposes  ?  Moses  killed  the  Egyp- 
tian, and  was  never  blamed  for  it ;  he  was  only 
punished  by  his  own  fearful  conscience  and  self- 
banishment  of  forty  years.  Why  not  assert 
that  his  bad  example  is  a  license  for  murder,  as 
much  as  that  Jacob's  two  wives  established  the 
rule  of  polygamy  ? 

*'  But  there  is  no  law  against  polygamy  in 
the  Mosaic  statutes,"  exclaims  the  commentator 
and  reverend  divine. 

Neither  is  there  any  statute  making  it  obliga- 
tory on  the  father  to  provide  for  his  child. 
Was  he  at  liberty  to  cast  it  off?  —  throw  it  to 
the  dogs  ? 

The  two  great  central  duties  of  humanity 
were  settled  in  Eden.  The  marriage  covenant, 
one  man  with  one  woman,  was  the  first;  the 
care  of  both  parents  equally  for  their  children 
is  the  second  enjoined  in  that  command  of  God. 
See  Genesis  i.  28. 


THE   GIVING  OF  THE  LAW.  79 

"  Be  fruitful,  and  multi})ly,  and  replenish  tlie 
earth,  and  subdue  it :  and  have  dominion  over 
the  fish  of  the  sea,  and  over  the  fowl  of  the  air, 
and  over  every  living  thing  that  moveth  upon 
the  earth." 

This  command,  addressed  by  Jehovah  to  the 
two  made  one,  can  never  be  obeyed  except  by 
the  most  sedulous  care  of  both  father  and 
mother  for  their  offspring.  These  two  central 
duties  of  human  life  come  next  after  the  duty 
of  loving  and  serving  God.  No  man  or  woman 
(who  is  married)  can  forego  these  duties  with- 
out sin ;  and  no  polygamist  could  ever  keep 
them. 

The  Hebrew  men,  as  a  general  rule,  have 
been  kind  husbands  and  fathers.  Many  traces 
of  this  care  for  their  wives  and  children  are 
discernible  in  the  Bible  narrative  of  remarkable 
events  connected  with  this  people ;  and  secular 
history,  and  the  jDresent  domestic  condition  of 
the  Jews,  attest  these  facts,  honorable  to  men 
of  this  race.  Hence  we  see  why,  in  the  primal 
law  of  marriage,  which  the  Hebrews  acknowl- 
edged in  following  the  example  of  Isaac  and 
Rebekah,  the  support  and  care  of  their  chil- 
dren, as  a  natural  sequence,  were  left,  without 


80 


THE   GIVIXO   OF   THE  LAW. 


special  enactment,  to  the  common  usages  of  tlie 
people. 

The  Hebrews  had  been  well  instructed  in 
these  duties.  This  is  apparent  in  the  history 
of  their  emancipation ;  and  that  they  stood  be- 
fore Mount  Sinai  as  clear  from  the  institution 
or  the  practice  of  polygamy  as  our  own  nation 
did  when  our  Constitution  was  framed,  there 
can  be  no  shadow  of  doubt. 

The  lamb  for  the  passover  was  designed  only 
for  small  householders  (see  Exodus  xii.),  and 
the  "forty  years  in  the  wilderness"  have  not  a 
trace  of  Jacob's  sin.  His  dereliction  from  duty 
stands  out  alone  in  Hebrew  annals,  till  the  time 
of  the  fifth  judge,  Gideon,  a  period  of  nearly 
three  hundred  years  after  the  giving  of  the  law, 
and  over  five  hundred  years  after  the  unhappy 
marriage  of  Jacob. 

No  doubt  that  many  of  the  men  of  Israel  were 
gross  sensualists  —  tlie  "  mixed  multitude  "  that 
went  out  with  them  shows  this :  but  they  were 
slaves  in  Egypt.  Would  the  Egyptians  allow 
the  despised  Hebrews  to  marry  with  the  daugh- 
ters of  the  land  ?   No  such  unions  are  recorded. 

An  absolute  necessity  of  obedience  to  the 
primal  law  was  laid  upon  the  Hebrews  during 


THE  GIVING 


or   THE  LAW. 


81 


their  sojourn  in  the  wilderness,  because  they 
were  prohibited  from  marrying  heathen  women, 
and  the  natural  laws  of  increase  hardly  allowed 
one  wife  to  each  Israelite.  Nor  did  they  have 
an  opportunity  of  marrying  or  making  concu- 
bines of  women  taken  in  war.  The  command 
of  Moses  was  to  "  destroy  the  Canaanites  utter- 
ly;  "  during  all  their  wars  —  till  the  Israelites 
settled  in  Canaan  —  only  sixteen  thousand  cap- 
tives, in  all,  were  spared. 

Thus,nfor  over  sixty  years,  was  this  system 
of  strict  monogamy  made  absolute  by  circum- 
stances, as  well  as  by  the  primal  law,  the  Sev- 
enth Commandment,  and  the  special  laws  of 
Moses,  as  I  shall  prove  in  my  next  chapter. 

It  is  as  plain  as  facts  and  circumstances  can 
make  it,  that  the  Israelites  could  not,  and  did 
not,  practice  polygamy  by  any  license  of  law  or 
custom  afforded  them  by  Divine  authority. 
When  they  fell  into  this  sin,  with  other  heinous 
sins,  they  set  at  defiance  the  law  regarding 
unions  with  heathen  women,  as  well  as  the  law 
of  monogamy. 

They  did  wickedly,  and  were  punished.  Why 
should  divines  and  ecclesiastical  bodies  seek  to 
lessen  the  wickedness  of  the  rebellious  Israelites 


82 


THE  GIVING  OF   THE  LAW. 


by  casting  on  the  Lord  God  the  odium  of  con- 
niving at  the  sin  of  adultery,  by  permitting  men 
to  break  this  command  as  regarded  their  own 
wives  ? 

If  a  married  man  looked  on  a  woman,  not 
his  wife,  and  lusted  after  her,  he  could  take  the 
second  one  for  a  wife,  and  all  was  right,  say 
these  reverend  commentators. 

Had  Potipliar's  wife  taken  Joseph  for  her 
husband,  while  Potiphar  was  her  husband, 
would  she  have  done  right,  by  the  laws  of 
Mount  Sinai  ? 

No !  no !  would  be  the  indignant  rejily  of 
the  priesthood. 

Why  not  ?  Will  the  commentators  show  how 
the  Seventh  Commandment  could  righteously 
be  varied  to  meet  this  difference  of  sex  ? 

Did  Moses  interpret  the  Commandment  in 
this  unequal  manner? 

We  shall  learn  in  the  next  chapter. 


CHAPTER  VII. 


THE  SPECIAL  LAWS  OF  MOSES. 

HERE  is  the  strong  ground  of  the  polyga- 
mist.  Contemners  of  the  Word  of  God 
have  eagerly  sought  to  disparage  the  Bible  by 
holding  up  the  Mosaic  Code  (whose  special  laws 
were  designed  to  keep  the  Israelites  a  separate 
and  peculiar  people)  to  reprobation,  as  the  most 
oppressive,  odious,  and  cruel,  ever  framed  by 
ancient  or  modern  lawgiver. 

I  shall  not  attempt  to  follow  out  the  specious 
reasoning,  false  assertions,  and  unjust  conclu- 
sions of  these  unbelievers,  from  the  leviathans 
of  infidelity.  Gibbon  and  Hume,  down  to  the 
venomous  and  loathsome  creatures  of  the  Mor- 
mon and  Colenso  classes. 

These  libelers  of  God's  truth,  and  false  ac- 
cusers of  His  justice,  have  been  boldly  met  and 
clearly  refuted  by  many  able  writers.  The  Mo- 
saic Code  has  been  pronounced,  by  conscientious 
and  learned  jurisconsults,  to  be  a  system  of  laws 

83 


84         THE  SPECIAL  LAWS   OF  MOSES. 


far  in  advance  of  tlie  civilization  of  tlie  age  in 
wliicli  it  was  promulgated,  and  calculated  to 
secure  a  greater  degree  of  personal  freedom, 
political  equality,  and  material  comfort  among 
the  people,  than  any  other  nation  in  the  world 
enjoyed,  till  after  the  introduction  of  Chris- 
tianity. 

With  two  exceptions,  the  laws  of  Moses, 
regulating  the  civil  polity  of  the  Hebrews  as  a 
nation,  have  been  set  in  their  true  light  of 
righteousness,  mercy,  and  love.  These  two  ex- 
ceptions are, 

First.  Slavery,  as  established  or  sanctioned 
by  the  Mosaic  Code ;  and,  secondly,  the  ques- 
tion of  Polygamy. 

The  first  proposition  I  shall  not  discuss  —  the 
subject  needs  separate  consideration. 

The  second  :  —  Was  Polygamy  sanctioned, 
permitted,  tolerated,  or  "  encouraged,"  by  the 
Mosaic  laws  ? 

This  is  the  question  now  before  us. 

It  shames  and  grieves  me  to  acknowledge  that 
men  of  high  repute  in  the  Christian  Church 
have  yielded  this  question.  Aye,  learned 
doctors  of  divinity  in  the  Protestant  Church 
have  asserted,  either  openly,  or  by  silent  ac- 


THE  SPECIAL  LAWS  OF  MOSES.  85 

quiescence  in  the  monstrous  doctrine,  that  the 
God  of  purity  has  pandered  to  the  lusts  of 
men ;  that  He,  who  made  man  and  woman 
for  each  other,  to  be  one  in  marriage,  has 
violated  His  own  law  of  creation,  and  by 
His  license  allowed  a  man  to  have  "two  or 
three  wives,"  or  more,  at  a  time ;  thus  annihi- 
lating the  woman's  claim  to  her  own  husband, 
and  tJie  oneness  or  covenant  of  true  marriage. 

And  yet  these  very  men  will  assert  that  mar- 
riage is  the  type  of  Christ  and  the  Church  ! 

These  doctors  of  divinity,  all  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  and,  I  fear,  the  greater  por- 
tion of  Protestant  clergymen,  unite  with  the 
Mormons  in  the  opinion  that  polygamy  was 
allowed,  either  by  "  dispensation,"  or  law,  or 
license,  or  toleration  —  at  least  by  the  laws  of 
Moses ;  and,  therefore,  polygamy  was  not  sin. 

I  deny  this,  and  am  ready  to  join  issue  on 
the  question. 

I  assert  that,  by  the  Mosaic  laws,  polygamy, 
or  more  wives  than  one,  was  neither  sanctioned, 
permitted,  tolerated,  nor  "  encouraged." 

In  the  last  chapter  I  have  shown  that  God's 
laws  of  Creation  and  of  Providence  were  both 
of  them  in  perfect  harmony  with  each  other, 

8 


86  THE  SPECIAL   LAWS   OF  MOSES. 

and  witli  the  law  of  Revelation  at  Mount  Sinai 
on  this  important  subject  of  marriage. 

I  shall  now  show  that  there  is  not,  in  the 
special  laws  given  by  Moses  to  regulate  the 
civil  polity  of  the  Hebrew  people,  a  single  pre- 
cept, command,  example,  or  statute,  which  gave 
permission  to  violate  the  Seventh  Command- 
ment. 

There  is  not  a  word  in  these  laws  recognizing 
the  right  of  any  man  to  have,  at  one  time, 
more  than  one  wife ;  he  must  be  freed  from  the 
wife  he  has  before  he  takes  another. 

There  is  not  a  word  in  these  laws  directing 
the  household  relations  of  the  polygamist.  If 
it  can  be  proven  by  these  laws  that  a  man  was 
permitted  to  have  more  than  one  wife  at  a  time, 
then  there  would  be  no  limit  to  the  number, 
and  no  check  interposed  on  the  selfishness  and 
bestiality  of  men. 

Did  Moses,  who  directed  that  the  mother- 
bird  should  not  be  taken  with  her  young ;  that 
the  kid  should  not  be  seethed  in  its  mother's 
milk  —  did  this  inspired  lawgiver  leave  the 
mothers  and  daughters  of  Israel  without  law  or 
precept,  hope  or  help,  subjected  to  the  lustful 
and  brutish  passions  of  the  men  ? 


THE  SPECIAL   LAWS  OF  MOSES. 


87 


Why,  tlie  lieatlien  logislators  would  put  liiin 
to  shame.  The  worst  system  of  polygamy 
among  Pagans  has  laws  that  limit  and  usages 
that  qualify  and  regulate  the  institution. 

The  Brahminical  and  Mahometan  codes  agree 
in  these  matters. 

The  Alcoran  is  explicit  on  this  point.  Ma- 
homet was  not  without  thought  and  care  for  the 
happiness  of  women.    He  says  : 

"  If  you  fear  to  do  injury  to  orphans,  fear, 
also,  to  do  injury  to  women :  marry  those  that 
please  you — two,  three,  or  four.  If  you  appre- 
hend that  you  shall  not  be  able  to  maintain 
them  equally,  marry  but  one. 

"  Give  to  women  (or  your  wives)  their  dowry 
with  a  good  will ;  if  they  give  you  anything 
that  is  pleasing  to  you,  receive  it  with  affection 
and  civility." — See  Alcoran,  chap,  iv.,  entitled 
"  Woman,"  written  at  Medina. 

In  the  same  chapter,  where  many  other  in- 
junctions are  given  to  the  husband,  regulating 
the  treatment  (always  to  be  kind  and  equal)  of 
his  wives,  Mahomet  says,  as  with  a  final  in- 
junction : 

"  If  you  believe  you  cannot  keep  equality 
and  justice  among  your  wives,  although  you 


88         THE  SPECIAL   LAWS  OF  MOSES. 

apply  yourself  to  it,  incline  not  altogether  to 
your  own  liking,  and  leave  not  a  wife  as  a  thing 
left  in  toleration.  If  you  live  in  good  accord, 
and  fear  to  injure  them,  God  will  be  merciful 
to  you." 

Is  there  any  passage  in  the  Mosaic  laws  thus 
explicit  on  a  plurality  of  wives  ? 

No  one  would,  I  presume,  affirm  that  the 
Bible  has  laws  like  these ;  still,  if  polygamy 
were  allowed,  laws  would  be  needed  —  laws  ex- 
plicit and  emphatic,  in  order  to  prevent  in- 
justice in  families. 

But  some  affirm  that  more  wives  than  one 
were  hinted  at,  or  referred  to,  and  that  there  are 
regulations  given  for  such  cases. 

Let  us  examine  these  cases  carefully  and 
thoroughly. 

There  are  three  passages,  in  particular,  pointed 
out  as  sustaining  the  opinion  that  polygamy  was 
allowed  or  tolerated. 

The  first  is  found  in  Exodus  xxi.  7-11. 

This  chapter  is  important,  as  it  regulates  and 
legalizes  Hebrew  servitude.  It  gives  the  He- 
brew man,  who  had  fallen  into  poverty,  the 
right  to  sell  himself,  or  his  services,  for  six 
years    on  the  seventh  year  he  was  to  go  out 


THE  SPECIAL   LAWS  OF  MOSES. 


89 


free.  He  could  also  sell  his  son  on  the  same 
terms  as  himself,  to  work  six  years  for  his  mas- 
ter, and  then  be  free.  But  the  daughter  could 
not  be  sold  in  this  manner,  as  a  servant  or 
slave ;  she  must  be  sold  to  be  the  wife  of  her 
master  or  of  his  son.  The  first  clause  runs 
thus : 

"If  a  man  sell  his  daughter  to  be  a  maid- 
servant, she  shall  not  go  out  as  the  men-servants 
do.  If  she  please  not  her  master,  who  hath 
betrothed  her  to  himself,  then  shall  he  let  her 
be  redeemed :  to  sell  her  unto  a  strange  nation 
he  shall  have  no  power,  seeing  he  hath  dealt 
deceitfully  with  her."  —  Exodus  xxi.  7,  8. 

We  see,  in  this  law,  the  care  taken  for  the 
young  girl's  protection.  Her  master  bought 
her  to  marry.  The  Hebrew  man  always  gave 
presents,  or  a  price,  to  the  parents  of  his  bride. 
This  Hebrew  master  betrothed  the  maid-servant; 
but  when  he  came  to  see  her,  if  he  changed  his 
mind,  and  refused  to  marry  her,  then  he  was 
compelled,  by  this  law,  to  allow  her  to  be  re- 
deemed ;  that  is,  he  must  take  what  he  had 
advanced  for  her,  and  set  the  girl  at  liberty. 
He  could  not  sell  her  to  the  heathen,  because 
a  daughter  of  Israel  could  not  marry  an  unbe- 


90         THE  SPECIAL   LAWS  OF  MOSES. 


liever ;  and  no  daughter  of  Israel,  as  we  learn 
from  this  law,  was  permitted  to  become  a 
slave. 

Now  for  the  second  contingency  : 

"And  if  he  have  betrothed  her  unto  his  son, 
he  shall  deal  with  her  after  the  manner  of 
daughters. 

"  If  he  take  him  another  betrothed  (the 
translators  have  added  wife,  which  evidently  is 
not  the  meaning)  ;  her  food,  her  raiment,  and 
her  duty  of  marriage,  shall  he  not  diminish. 

*'  And  if  he  do  not  these  three  unto  her,  then 
shall  she  go  out  free  without  money." — Exodus 
xxi.  9-11. 

In  the  first  place  there  is  no  marriage  predi- 
cated of  the  parties  —  only  a  betrothal.  The 
translators  have  interpolated  the  word  wife,  in 
the  second  clause,  which  is  not  the  meaning, 
either  grammatically  or  reasonably.  They  have 
also  translated  the  latter  part  of  this  clause, 
which  means  to  "  provide  her  marriage,"  into 
the  "  duty  of  marriage,"  which  it  does  not 
mean. 

In  the  Douay  Bible,  the  tenth  verse  is  ren- 
dered thus,  wliich  is  the  most  correct  version : 
"And  if  he  (the  master)  take  another  for 


THE  SPECIAL   LAWS   OF  MOSES. 


91 


him  (his  son),  lie  shall  provide  her  (the  maid- 
servHut)  a  marriage  and  raiment."  * 

The  law  was  evidently  framed  to  prevent 
the  daughters  of  the  poor  among  the  Hebrews 
from  becoming  slaves ;  to  protect  them  from 
the  selfishness  and  lust  of  their  masters,  and  to 
provide  them  honorable  marriage  or  honorable 
freedom. 

If  the  rich  man,  or  the  one  able  to  buy,  at 
least,  did  not  fulfil  his  promise  of  marrying  this 
poor  girl,  she  went  out  free.  She  was  not  to  be 
his  second  or  third  wife,  or  his  concubine,  but 
he  was  to  marry  her. 

If  the  master  bought  her  for  his  son,  she  was 
to  be  in  the  family  as  a  daughter,  not  a  ser- 
vant, till  she  was  married ;  and  if  the  father 
changed  his  mind,  and  found  another  to  be  the 
wife  of  his  son,  then  this  injured,  this  disap- 
pointed, this  betrothed  maid,  had  the  right  to 
claim  that  her  owner  should  support  her  as  he 

*  Ver.  9  But  if  he  hath  betrothed  her  to  his  son,  he  shall 
deal  with  her  after  the  manner  of  daughters. 

10  And  if  he  take  another  wife  for  him,  he  shall  provide  her 
a  marriage,  and  raiment,  neither  shall  he  refuse  the  price  af 
her  chastity. 

11  And  if  he  do  not  these  three  things,  she  shall  go  out 
free  without  money.  —  Douay  Bible,  Exodus  xxi. 


92         THE   SPECIAL   LAWS   OF  MOSES. 

had  done,  or  find  lier  another  husband,  or  let 
her  go  free. 

What  is  there  in  this  law  to  sustain  po- 
lygamy? The  maid -servant  goes  out  a  free 
woman,  not  a  divorced  woman,  as  she  would 
have  been  had  she  been  married  to  the  son. 
She  goes  out  because  the  son  is  to  have  another 
wife  taken  instead  of  her ;  therefore,  she  has 
never  been  married  —  only  betrothed.  Surely 
this  does  not  sanction  a  plurality  of  wives. 

Will  any  American  divine  contend  that  the 
meaning  of  this  law  is  to  be  interpreted  as  a 
license  to  the  son  to  keep  this  young,  friendless 
girl,  whom  his  father  had  solemnly  engaged  he 
should  marry  —  to  keep  her  as  a  paramour  — 
a  sort  of  left-handed  wife,  as  long  as  he  pleased 
to  gratify  his  lust,  and  then  set  her  free  —  that 
is,  turn  her  out  of  his  house  disgraced,  betrayed, 
ruined  ? 

Why,  Mahomet  would  have  been  ashamed  of 
such  injustice. 

I  question  whether  the  Mormon  code  has  a 
law  so  wicked  as  this  would  be,  if  thus  inter- 
preted. 

The  whole  tenor  of  the  Mosaic  laws  is  to  keep 
the  people  virtuous,  honorable  and  good.  They 


THE  SPECIAL   LAWS  OF   MOSES.  93 

are  to  be  a  holy  people,  so  that  the  Lord  God 
can  dwell  in  the  midst  of  them. 
One  enactment  is : 

"  There  shall  be  no  harlot  of  the  daughters 
of  Israel."  —  Deuteronomy  xxiii.  17. 

In  the  face  of  this  positive  injunction,  does  it 
seem  possible  that  any  Protestant  Christian  di- 
vine could  have  interpreted  the  law  of  Exodus 
xxi.,  given  to  guard  the  maid-servant,  a  daugh- 
ter of  Israel,  as  meaning  that  she  may  be  dis- 
honored, kept  as  a  concubine,  and  then  turned 
away  at  the  pleasure  of  the  man,  who,  under  a 
solemn  betrothment,  sought  her  to  be  his  wife  ? 

And  yet  the  Rev.  Thomas  Scott,  D.  D.,  in  his 
celebrated  "  Notes  on  the  Bible,"  has  asserted 
that  this  maid -servant,  a  daughter  of  Israel, 
might  be  taken  by  her  master  "  as  his  wife,  or 
concubine ; "  and  if  her  master  "  afterwards 
grew  weary  of  her,"  he  might  let  her  be  re- 
deemed, or  set  her  at  liberty.  And  he  also  ex- 
plains that  the  son  could  keep  two  women  as 
his  wives  —  that  is,  be  a  polygamist. 

Now  the  term  concubine  is  not  found  in  the 
Levitic^l  law.  Moses  never  put  the  foul  word 
into  an  ordinance  he  framed.  The  whole  the- 
ory of  this  system  of  "  inferior  wives "  and 


94 


THE  SPECIAL   LAWS   OF  MOSES. 


"  concubines  "  lias  been  manufactured  by  monk- 
ish sensuality  and  ecclesiastical  ingenuity,  to 
gain  power  for  the  priesthood  over  the  con- 
sciences of  men. 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church  acknowledges 
that  polygamy  is  contrary  to  God's  primal  law 
of  marriage,  but  insists  that  a  "  Divine  dispen- 
sation was  allowed  to  the  patriarchs,  which 
allowance  seems  to  have  continued  during  tlie 
law  of  Moses."*  Therefore  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic Church  can  grant  "  dispensations  "  for  these 
unholy  connections. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Thomas  Scott  does  not  ex- 
actly agree  to  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine, 
that  the  patriarchs  had  a  "  Divine  dispensa- 
tion "  for  adultery,  but  he  turns  and  twists  the 
moral  law  in  every  possible  light,  to  soften  the 
sins  of  Abraham  and  Jacob. 

By  thus  working  up  their  minds  to  the  be- 
lief that  the  patriarchs  did  not  do  any  great 
wrong ;  that  women  have  no  rights,  no  duties, 

*  See  the  splendid  edition  of  the  Douay  Bible,  "  with  the 
complete  notes  of  Rev.  George  Leo.  Haydock,"  published  by 
Edward  Dunigan  &  Brother,  New  York,  1855;  approved  by 
John,  Archbishop  of  New  York,  and  honored  by  the  Pope, 
Pius  IX.,  who  sent  a  gold  medal  and  his  blessing  to  the  pub- 
lishers. —  In  llie  notes,  see  Genesis  xvi.  3. 


THE  SPECIAL   LAAVS  OF   MOSES.  95 

but  what  men  may,  for  their  own  pleasure  and 
convenience  impose,  the  Protestant  clergy  have 
fallen  into  the  gulf  of  adulterous  sin  which  the 
Romanist  had  opened.  Without  exactly  com- 
mending the  concubinage  of  Abraham,  and  the 
polygamy  of  Jacob,  as  just  and  to  be  imitated, 
the  Protestant  divines  labor,  in  their  ethical  and 
moral  criticisms,  to  find,  in  the  Mosaic  laws, 
some  enactment  that  will  justify  the  patriarchs. 
It  is  impossible  to  conceive  how  sane,  honest 
men,  if  they  had  faithfully  sought  the  meaning 
of  this  law  concerning  the  Hebrew  maid- 
servant, could  have  interpreted  it  into  a  j^er- 
mission  to  her  master  to  make  her  his  "  concu- 
bine," or  paramour,  at  his  pleasure,  and  turn 
her  away,  if  he  grew  weary  of  her. 

The  next  paSsage  relied  on  to  prove  a  Divine 
permission  for  a  plurality  of  wives,  occurs  in 
Leviticus  xviii.  18.  The  lawgiver  is  treating 
of  "  unlawful  marriages." 

"Neither  shalt  thou  take  a  wife  to  her 
sister  to  vex  her,  beside  the  other  in  her  life- 
time." 

Here  the  prohibition  against  taking  a  second 
wife,  during  the  life-time  of  the  first,  has  been 
tortured  into  meaning  that  the  man  might  take 


96 


THE   SPECIAL   LAWS   OF  MOSES. 


"  two  or  three  wives,"  or  as  many  as  lie  pleased, 
provided  he  did  not  marry  two  sisters. 

This  law,  it  is  evident  on  its  face,  was  espe- 
cially pointed  against  a  plurality  of  wives. 
The  only  case  of  this  j^olygamy  extant,  in  He- 
brew history,  was  that  of  Jacob,  which  this  ex- 
actly met  and  prohibited  in  future. 

As  the  patriarch  had  married  two  sisters,  a 
law  strictly  forbidding  unions  of  a  like  kind 
was  need'ed.  It  was  given.  The  only  plausible 
justification  of  such  a  sin  was  thus  taken  away 
from  the  men  of  Israel.  No  man  could  venture 
to  set  the  example  of  Jacob  above  the  positive 
law  of  Moses.  No  man  could  marry  two  sisters, 
and  plead  such  a  marriage  was  once  "  tolerated" 
«  by  the  Lord  in  the  case  of  the  patriarch. 

Plow  could  this  law  sustain  polygamy,  when 
it  forbade  such  connections  ? 

The  third  passage  quoted  by  "plurality"  men 
is  in  Deuteronomy  xxi.  15-17. 

"  If  a  man  have  two  wives,  one  beloved,  and 
another  hated,  and  they  have  borne  him  chil- 
dren, both  the  beloved  and  the  hated ;  and  if  the 
first-born  son  be  hers  that  was  hated :  Then  it 
shall  be,  when  he  maketh  his  sons  to  inherit 


THE  SPECIAL   LAWS  OP  MOSES.  97 

that  which  he  hath,  that  he  may  not  make  the 
son  of  the  beloved  first-born  before  the  son  of 
the  hated,  which  is  indeed  the  first-born : 

*'  But  he  shall  acknowledge  the  son  of  the 
hated  for  the  first-born,  by  giving  him  a  double 
portion  of  all  thtit  he  hath." 

The  right  of  divorce  permitted  the  Hebrew 
husband  to  put  away  his  wife,  "  if  he  hated  her  " 
(or,  as  some  translators  say,  if  he  used  her  ill), 
and  to  marry  another. 

This  law  of  the  "  two  wives "  was  the  very 
statute  needed  to  guard  the  rights  of  the  chil- 
dren of  the  first  marriage.  The  hated  and 
divorced  wife,  who  had  borne  her  husband  a 
son,  was  thus  secured  in  her  rights  as  a  mother ; 
her  husband  could  not  disinherit  her  son,  how-» 
ever  he  might  "  hate  her,"  and  divorce  her. 

But  this  law  did  not  give  a  man  the  right  to 
have  two  wives  at  a  time,  any  more  than  it  gave 
him  the  right  to  have  twenty,  or  two  hundred. 

An  English  or  American  law  might  be  ex- 
pressed in  the  exact  terms  of  this  Mosaic  statute, 
namely  : 

"  If  a  man  have  two  wives,  the  eldest  son 
shall  have  a  double  portion;  the  father  shall 

9 


98 


THE  SPECIAL   LAWS  OF  MOSES. 


not  make  a  will  to  liis  detriment,  in  favor  of 
the  eldest  son  by  the  second  wife." 

Would  any  legislator,  lawyer,  or  logician,  in- 
terpret the  law  to  mean  that  an  American,  or 
an  Englishman,  might  lawfully  have  the  two 
wives  at  -the  same  time  ?  might  break  the  Sev- 
enth Commandment,  and  be  a  bigamist,  if  he 
chose  ? 

Would  not  every  person  see  that  it  was  meant 
to  guard  the  rights  of  children,  when  divorce  or 
death  allowed  a  man  to  have,  or  to  have  had, 
more  wives  than  one  ?  * 

*  As  a  case  in  point,  I  will  refer  to  that  eminent  Baptist 
clergyman,  Rev.  Adonijah  Judson,  D.  D.,  whose  memory,  as  a 
learned  and  pious  Christian  missionary,  is  honored  throughout 
the  world. 

Dr.  Judson  resided  over  forty  years  in  a  land  of  polygamy ; 
be  married  three  wives ;  the  biographies  of  these  three  wives 
are  now  bound  together  in  one  volume. 

Here  is  accumulated  circumstantial  evidence  that  Dr.  Jud- 
son was  a  polygamist;  indeed,  the  circumstances  thus  truly 
told  are  far  stronger  than  any  which  can  be  adduced  to  prove 
that  the  Mosaic  laws,  or  the  usages  of  the  Hebrew  people, 
favored  a  plurality  of  wives.  Why  do  we  not  believe  that  Dr. 
Judson  was  a  polygamist? 

Because  we  know  he  was  of  a  people  and  a  faith  which  pre- 
clude such  an  idea. 

And  this  was  the  condition  of  the  Hebrew  nation  when  the 
Mosaic  law  was  given ;  they  understood  the  statute  in  question 
as  we  should  understand  a  similar'  one  in  our  codes,  namely, 


THE   SPECIAL   LAWS  OF  MOSES. 


99 


A  monogamist  may  liave  had  three  or  four 
wives  ill  his  lifetime.  We  have,  in  our  Church, 
examples  of  such  marriages,  all  lawful,  loving, 
and  happy ;  or,  may  be,  one  of  the  wives  the 
favorite. 

So,  doubtless,  it  was  in  Israel ;  but  this  law 
took  away  the  power  of  the  man  to  change  the 
succession  in  his  family  —  his  eldest  son  was 
legal  heir  of  a  double  portion,  though  his 
mother  might  not  have  been  the  favorite  wife, 
nor  the  first  wife  of  his  father. 

Now  the  passages  I  have  given  are  the  only 
laws  that  can,  by  any  twisting,  be  made  to  lean 
to  the  side  of  polygamy. 

I  appeal  to  reasonable  men  —  to  reverent, 
Bible-loving  Christians,  men  and  women  —  to 
examine  these  passages  in  all  their  bearings, 
and  I  feel  sure  they  will  agree  with  me  in  the 
conclusion  that  there  is  nothing  in  these  laws  to 
sanction,  or  permit,  or  tolerate  polygamy  for  the 
Hebrew  men  —  but  the  reverse. 

The  negative  side  of  the  question  is  stronger 

that  it  was  intended  to  protect  the  rights  of  the  eldest  son  of 
Rev.  Dr.  Judson,  whether  born  of  his  first,  second,  or  third 
wife ;  while  no  idea  of  a  plurality  of  living  wives  would  even 
be  suggested. 


100       THE   SPECIAL   LAWS  OF  MOSES. 

still.  There  is  no  law,  no  permission  in  tlie 
Mosaic  code  for  a  man  to  have  more  wives  tlian 
one  at  a  time. 

There  are  no  regulations  for  such  a  state  of 
society  as  this  permission  would  have  developed. 

The  law  of  marrying  a  deceased  brother's 
widow,  shows  that  no  such  case  as  a  plurality  of 
wives  was  ever  contemplated  by  Moses,  any  more 
than  by  the  framers  of  our  own  laws. 

The  law  referred  to  required  that,  if  a  man 
died,  leaving  no  children,  his  brother,  or  nearest 
kinsman,  should  marry  the  widow ;  and  if  she 
bore  a  son,  he  took  the  name  and  inheritance  of 
her  first  husband,  so  that  his  name  might  not 
be  blotted  out  of  his  tribe. 

Now  if,  according  to  the  Mosaic  laws,  a  man 
might  lawfully  marry  "  two  or  three,"  or  twenty 
wives,  would  not  such  a  contingency  have  been 
taken  into  account?  Would  not  the  brother 
have  been  enjoined  to  marry  several  of  these 
widows,  so  as  to  make  certain  of  an  heir  for  his 
brother?  And  would  not  some  mode  of  pro- 
viding for  the  widows  have  been  suggested? 
either  to  burn  them,  as  in  India,  or  to  give 
them  a  retiring  portion  of  the  deceased  man's 
estate?    Instead  of  which,  one  widoio  only  is 


THE   SPECIAL   LAWS  OF  MOSES.  101 

considered  possible  by  this  law,  as  in  our  own 
laws,  and  her  son,  if  she  should  bear  one,  is  to 
inherit  all  his  father's  estate. 

Can  any  of  the  theologians  who  insist  on  the 
polygamy  of  the  Hebrew  men  give  the  law  or 
the  authority  to  show  how  this  plurality  of  wives 
was  supported,  and  what  provision  was  made  for 
the  family  of  widows  which,  at  times,  must  have 
been  left  by  some  Joe  Smith  in  Israel  ? 

What  would  have  been  the  duty  of  Boaz,  if 
Mahlon  had  left  "  two  or  three "  widows  be- 
sides Ruth?  Would  Boaz  have  been  obliged 
to  marry  them  all  at  once  ?  or  consecutively,  if 
Ruth  had  borne  no  son  ? 

And,  supposing  Boaz  had  a  wife  when  he 
married  Ruth,  "  encouraged  (by  this  law)  to 
take  a  second  wife  while  the  first  was  living ;  " 
and  then,  had  Boaz  died,  leaving  these  two 
widows,  would  they  have  been  equally  entitled 
to  the  protection  of  the  Lord  God  ? 

Here  is  a  difficulty  which  no  theologian  has 
yet  solved,  nor,  so  far  as  I  can  find,  ever  con- 
sidered. What  was  to  become  of  the  widows 
left  by  the  polygamist  ? 

In  the  Old  Testament,  as  in  the  New,  widows 
are  represented,  and  set  forth  by  example,  as 


102 


THE  SPECIAL   LAWS  OF  MOSES. 


specially  cared  for  and  watclied  over  by  Divine 
Providence,  and  entitled  to  tlie  kindest  consid- 
eration by  human  laws.  Jehovah  is  the  widow's 
"Judge  "  and  "  God  :  "  who  shall  do  her  wrong 
and  escape  punishment  ? 

Is  not  the  system  of  polygamy  always  a 
grievous  wrong  on  woman?  If  the  Israelites 
were  left  without  any  law  to  restrain  their  lust, 
and  could  take  any  number  of  wives  they 
pleased,  from  "two  or  three"  to  "seven,"  or 
"  seven  hundred,"  what  became  of  the  widows 
of  these  polygamists  ? 

That  this  law  comprehended  only  the  un- 
married brothers  of  the  deceased  husband,  is 
apparent  on  its  face ;  but,  as  if  to  preclude  all 
doubt,  we  have  three  illustrations  of  its  prac- 
tical application,  and  in  each  no  vestige  of 
polygamy. 

First,  see  Genesis  xxxviii.,  where  the  usage  for 
which  this  statute  was  substituted  is  exempli- 
fied ;  second,  the  marriage  of  Boaz  with  Ruth ; 
third,  the  case  of  the  woman  who  had  married, 
successively,  seven  brothers. — St.  Matthew  xxii. 
24. 

If  it  can  be  proven  that  this  law  of  marrying 
a  deceased  brother's  widow  did  "  encourage  (a 


THE  SPECIAL  LAWS  OF  MOSES.  103 

man)  to  take  a  second  wife  while  the  first  was 
living,"  then  the  Seventh  Commandment  was 
set  aside ;  and  if  one  Commandment  can  be  nul- 
lified without  sin,  the  whole  Decalogue  is  mere 
waste  paper. 

All  the  Mosaic  laws,  and  all  the  usages  re- 
ferred to  in  the  books  of  Moses,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  the  deeds  of  Abraham  and  Jacob,  in 
Genesis,  are  and  were  framed  on  the  legality  of 
monogamy  only. 

No  other  mode  of  marriage  is  recognized ; 
nor  are  the  family  arrangements  any  more  in- 
dicative of  a  state  of  polygamy  than  are  those 
of  New  York  or  Massachusetts. 

The  regulations  concerning  the  marriages  of 
the  priests  prove  as  plainly  as  St.  Paul's  injunc- 
tions to  Timothy,  that  one  wife  only  was  the 
law.    (See  Leviticus  xxi.  13,  14.) 

So,  also,  does  the  law  for  the  inheritance  of 
daughters  show  the  same  true  family  relations. 
Numbers  xxxvi.  11,  12. 

In  the  same  spirit  all  the  statutes  against 
licentiousness  are  framed ;  and,  also,  all  the 
laws  to  protect  woman's  virtue,  and  to  punish 
men's  sensual  sins.  But  one  wife  is  taken  into 
account  in  framing  the  law  of  divorce;  and 


104       THE  SPECIAL   LAWS  OF  MOSES. 

here  is  an  exception  whicli  has  been  interpreted 
in  the  favor  of  the  men  of  Israel  —  that  is,  a 
man  could  divorce  his  wife  if  he  found  "  some 
uncleanness  in  her,"  but  no  such  permission  is 
given  the  woman. 

That  this  law  was  not  framed  because  men 
were  better  than  women,  but  because  they  were 
worse,  the  Saviour  has  clearly  explained ;  yet 
this  statute  did  not,  in  the  least,  give  permission 
to  polygamy.  It  seems  to  have  been  framed  in 
mercy  to  the  hated  wife,  so  that  she  might  have 
another  chance  for  conjugal  happiness;  or,  if 
she  were  impure,  and  had  imposed  on  a  good 
man,  it  gave  him  redress.  According  to  our 
Saviour's  explanation,  the  latter  case  seldoju 
occurred. 

Now,  if  the  Hebrew  men  were  so  hard  of 
heart  —  so  sensual  as  they  are  constantly  repre- 
sented— had  polygamy  been  allowed,  they  would 
liave  become  a  nation  of  Mormons.  The  fact 
that  no  trace  of  the  institution  can  be  discovered 
in  their  laws,  and  that  every  infraction  of  the 
Divine  command  against  connections  with  the 
women  of  the  heathen  people  that  surrounded 
tlieir  journey,  was  punished  at  once  with  death, 
defeat,  and  national  calamities,  are  unanswerable 


THE   SPECIAL   LAWS  OF   MOSES.  105 


refutations  of  this  charge  of  polygamy  against 
the  Israelites. 

And,  over  and  above  all  this  mass  of  tes- 
timony, which  every  righteous  lawgiver,  and 
every  honest  mind  seeking  legal  truth,  must 
acknowledge  to  be  conclusive,  we  have  the 
direct  enactment. 

In  the  only  case  where,  under  a  possible  con- 
tingency, the  power  of  one  man  might  set  the 
common  usage  of  Hebrew  marriage  and  the 
Seventh  Commandment  at  defiance,  a  special 
ordinance  is  promulgated. 

Anticipating  the  time  when  the  Israelites 
might  desire  a  king  to  rule  over  them,  which 
time  came  in  about  three  hundred  years,  Moses 
gave  laws  for  this  future  monarch ;  —  one  clause 
runs  thus : 

"  Neither  shall  he  (the  king)  multiply  wives 
to  himself,  that  his  heart  turn  not  away." — 
Deuteronomy  xvii.  17. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


THE  JUDGES  OF  ISRAEL. 

THE  Israelites  are  always  represented  as  a 
sensual  and  rebellious  people.  Prominent 
in  the  record  of  their  sins  are  their  intermar- 
riages and  licentious  connections  with  the 
heathen  around  them,  into  which  the  chosen 
race  fell  as  soon  as  the  opportunity  presented. 

These  connections  always  led  the  Israelites 
into  idolatry,  which  is  the  natural  ally  of  po- 
lygamy. 

Search  the  history  of  the  past :  —  have  not 
all  false  religions  either  commenced  or  ended  iu 
corrupting  the  simple  oneness  of  God's  primal 
law  of  marriage  ? 

Look  over  the  world  of  the  present :  —  does 
not  every  nation,  people,  and  individual,  up- 
holding a  plurality  of  wives,  deny  the  true 
God? 

How,  then,  can  it  be  possible  for  a  Christian 
to  believe  that  He,  who  "knew  what  was  in 

106 


THE  JUDGES  OP  ISRAEL. 


107 


man,"  should  have  sanctioned,  permitted,  or 
tolerated,  by  His  authority,  the  indulgence  of 
such  a  corru2)ting  practice  ? 

The  history  of  the  Hebrew  nation  under  the 
Judges,  from  the  death  of  Joshua  till  the  theo- 
cratic republic  was  merged  iuto  a  monarchy, 
includes  a  period  of  nearly  three  hundred  and 
fifty  years.  The  records  are  unceasing  repe- 
titions of  the  idolatries  and  licentiousness  of  the 
people,  and  their  sufferings  for  those  sins  un- 
der the  just  punishments  which  the  holy  laws 
of  God  inflicted. 

It  is  a  most  sorrowful  record  of  poor  fallen 
humanity ;  most  humbling  to  the  pride  of  those 
philosophers  who  glory  in  the  power  of  reason 
to  regulate  the  passions,  and  who  would  de- 
throne the  God  of  the  Moral  Law  and  exalt 
Nature  to  be  the  guide  of  man. 

Whilst  Joshua  and  the  elders  lived,  who  had 
known  Moses,  and  truly  loved  and  feared  the 
Lord,  all  was  prosperity.  But  when  new  gen- 
erations arose,  who  set  aside  and  derided  the 
law,  while  "  every  man  did  that  which  was  right 
in  his  own  eyes "  —  in  modern  philosophical 
jargon,  when  man  was  a  law  to  himself — then 
such  scenes  of  horrible  iniquity  became  fre- 


108 


THE   JUDGES  OF  ISRAEL. 


quent  in  the  land  as  no  written  description  can 
jwrtray.  We  feel  the  awful  guilt  of  the  people 
in  the  awful  punishments  they  had  to  undergo. 

Polygamy  is  among  these  heaven-daring  sins, 
and  two  cases  stand  out,  prominently,  on  the 
dark  picture  of  wickedness  which  Holy  Writ 
has  revealed. 

The  first  is  that  of  Gideon,  the  brave  young 
champion,  who  roused  his  enslaved  and  repent- 
ant countrymen  to  rebel  against  their  Philistine 
oppressors.  By  his  heroic  prowess,  which  was 
signally  blessed  of  God,  he  delivered  Israel  from 
their  fierce  foes,  and  restored  the  tribes  to  the 
enjoyment  of  their  freedom. 

But  so  deeply  had  the  Israelites  become  be- 
sotted in  heathen  customs,  that  even  Gideon, 
the  strong  warrior  who  conquered  the  two 
princes  of  Midian,  yielded  to  the  pollutions  of 
idolatrous  worship  and  polygamy,  those  twin 
destroyers  of  the  souls  of  men. 

"  He  had  many  wives,"  and  "  three-score  and 
ten  sons,"  besides  one  other  son,  born  of  a  con- 
cubine whom  Gideon  kei)t  in  Sechem. 

This  mighty  man  of  valor,  this  Judge  of 
Israel,  had,  as  the  natural  sequence  of  his  harem 
life,  fallen  into  idolatry ;  yet  there  is  no  punish- 


THE  JUDGES  OF  ISRAEL. 


109 


ment  for  either  sin  recorded  against  him.  He 
lived  as  he  chose,  and  he  "  died  in  a  good  old 
age." 

Had  the  family  annals  there  ended,  the  jus- 
tice of  God,  in  this  case,  would  have  been  un- 
explained. 

But  mark  the  sequel.  Gideon  left  a  regiment 
of  sons.  Surely  these,  his  descendants,  must 
take  root  in  the  land  their  father  delivered  from 
the  Philistines. 

Alas !  no.  Foes  more  cruel  than  the  heathen 
are  in  the  family  of  every  polygamist.  The 
greater  the  number  of  children  in  such  a  house- 
hold, the  more  deadly  enemies  each  one  has  to 
encounter. 

In  this  case  the  destruction  came  by  Abime- 
lech,  the  son  of  the  concubine.  He  "  slew  his 
brethren,  three-score  and  ten  persons,  upon  one 
stone ;  "  all,  save  Jotham,  the  youngest,  who  hid 
himself,  and  is  of  no  further  account. 

Abimelech  seized  the  government,  but,  after 
three  years  only,  he,  too,  was  ignominiously 
killed  —  his  skull  broken  by  the  hand  of  a 
woman ! 

And  thus  the  adulterous  family  of  Gideon 
was,  in  the  space  of  a  few  years,  swept  from  off 

10 


110 


THE   JUDGES   OF  ISRAEL. 


tlie  face  of  tlie  earth. — See  Judges  vii.,  viii., 
ix. 

Another  terrible  tragedy,  resulting  from  these 
sins  against  God's  holy  law  of  marriage,  is  that 
of  the  Levite  and  his  concubine,  which  excited 
a  civil  war  between  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  and 
all  the  other  tribes  of  Israel. 

In  this  bloody  strife  of  brethren,  one  hun- 
dred and  ten  thousand  men  of  war,  reckoning 
losses  on  both  sides,  were  slain.  Moreover, 
every  city  of  Benjamin  was  taken  and  pillaged  ; 
every  man,  woman  and  child  of  that  tribe  was 
put  to  the  sword,  —  excepting  six  hundred  men 
of  war,  who  fled  to  the  wilderness,  and  thus 
escaped  the  general  massacre. 

All  these  crimes,  revenges,  and  horrors,  were 
the  legitimate  result  of  licentiousness  and  con- 
cubinage ;  thus  demonstrating  the  sins  of  these 
unlawful  connections ;  for  nothing  but  sin  and 
its  punishment  disturbs  the  moral  harmony  of 
the  universe. 

Moreover,  this  history  furnishes  a  signal 
proof  that  monogamy  was  then,  as  it  was  when 
Abraham  was  called  out  of  Haran  with  his  one 
wife,  and  ever  had  been,  notwithstanding  its 
violations,  the  law  of  marriage  in  Israel. 


THE   JUDGES  OF  ISRAEL.  Ill 

I  need  not  go  into  particulars  ;  read  the  last 
three  chapters  of  "Judges,"  and  learn  how  the 
six  hundred  Benjaminites,  all  that  were  left 
of  this  once  powerful  tribe,  were  provided  with 
wives,  "every  man  his  wife"  —  one  wife,  and 
no  more. 

The  next  instance  of  polygamy  is  recorded  in 
1  Samuel  i.  It  is  the  story  of  Hannah,  wife  of 
Elkanah,  who  had  "  two  wives." 

From  this  narrative  it  is  apparent  that  Han- 
nah was  the  true  wife,  the  first  wife,  the  beloved 
of  her  husband ;  but  she  had  no  children.  That 
might  have  been  the  reason  or  excuse  for  taking 
the  other  wife,  Peninuah,  who  had  borne  Elka- 
nah ten  sons ;  yet  still  he  loved  the  childless 
Hannah  better  than  all  these  sons. 

This  love  for  the  favorite  wife,  which  Elkanah 
seems  to  have  openly  manifested,  made  Penin- 
nali  furious  in  her  spite  and  jealousy  toward 
Hannah.  The  first  glimpse  we  have  of  the 
family  shows  its  life  of  contentions  and  hatreds; 
its  unceasing  troubles  and  bitter  sorrows. 

The  sketches  we  have  of  the  pious  mother  of 
Samuel  and  of  her  distinguished  son  are  instruc- 
tive on  many  points  connected  with  the  question. 


112 


THE  JUDGES  OF  ISEAEL. 


we  are  discussing.  We  have  here  the  immediate 
and  certain  evil  results  of  unlawful  marriages 
in  the  unhappiness  of  Elkauah  and  his  "two 
wives ; "  and  though  the  mother  of  Samuel  was 
sinned  against  more  than  sinning,  and  her  faith 
was  blessed  with  such  a  son  as  Samuel,  yet  his 
history  shows  us  the  sure  retributive  justice  that, 
sooner  or  later,  overtakes  all  who  break  God's 
laws,  or  who,  by  neglecting  their  duties,  allow 
others  to  violate  these  laws. 

Eli,  good  old  Eli ! — that  is,  he  himself — had 
not  done  wickedly.  He  loved  the  Lord  and 
walked  in  the  statutes  of  Moses.  And  yet  he, 
the  High  Priest  and  Ruler  of  Israel,  is  to  be 
superseded,  because  he  has  tolerated  the  licen- 
tious sins  of  his  sons. 

Does  this  justify  the  opinion  which  com- 
mentators and  ecclesiastical  writers  often  in- 
sinuate—  if  they  do  not  openly  advance  and 
advocate  —  namely,  that  God  made  woman  to 
subserve  the  sensual  desires  of  men  ? 

The  Lord  did  not  thus  tenderly  treat  the 
lusts  of  the  sons  of  good  old  Eli.  These  wicked 
young  men,  whom  their  father  "  had  not  re- 
strained," were  both  to  die  in  one  day;  to  be  cut 
oflf  without  ho23e ;  there  was  never  to  be  another 


THE  JUDGES  OF  ISRAEL. 


113 


old  man  of  that  race ;  all  were  to  "  die  in  the 
flower  of  their  age."  —  See  1  Samuel  ii.  12-36. 

And  as  though  to  stamp  them  and  their 
father  with  deeper  humiliation  and  ignominy, 
an  Ephrathite,  the  son  of  a  polygamist,  the  son 
of  a  woman  whom  the  old  priest  had  thought 
drunken  —  this  boy  was  to  be  the  successor  and 
the  superior  of  Eli ! 

What  must  have  been  the  degeneracy  of  those 
who,  by  birth-right,  claimed  the  priesthood,  when 
such  a  child  was  chosen  to  supersede  the  Aaronic 
line? 

Was  there  any  other  cause  for  this  degeneracy 
except  disobedience  to  the  Moral  and  the  Mosaic 
laws  which  God  had  established?  And  is  it 
not  apparent,  from  the  curse  of  the  Lord  against 
the  sons  of  Eli,  that  their  unpardonable  sin  was 
the  transgression  of  the  Seventh  Commandment 
—  the  pollution  of  woman  ? 

Still,  it  happens,  not  unfrequently,  that  pun- 
ishments for  sin  are  delayed  till  the  guilty,  and 
sometimes  the  innocent,  think  that  wickedness 
is  tolerated,  or  may  be  sanctioned.  God  is  long- 
suffering.  He  waits  and  gives  opportunity  for 
repentance  and  reformation.  The  effects  of 
moral  degeneracy,  of  unlawful  acts,  are  not  de- 

10* 


114 


THE  JUDGES  OF  ISRAEL. 


veloped,  nor  their  consequences  seen,  in  one 
generation,  or  even  in  two.  This  is  the  decla- 
ration : 

"  For  I  the  Lord  thy  God  am  a  jealous  God, 
visiting  the  iniquity  of  the  fathers  upon  the 
children  unto  the  third  and  fourth  generation 
of  them  that  hate  me;  and  shewing  mercy  unto 
thousands  of  them  that  love  me,  and  keep  my 
commandments." 

It  happens,  and  not  unfrequently,  that  one 
who  truly  loves  God,  as  Sarah  did,  as  Hannah 
undoubtedly  did,  is  drawn  into  the  snares  of 
wickedness  by  connections  with  transgressors ; 
and  the  woman  sins  and  suiBfers  —  yet  God  does 
show  mercy,  does  forgive. 

But  to  forgive  sin  is  not  to  tolerate  sin.  This 
should  be  carefully  remembered. 

God  showed  mercy,  great  mercy,  to  Hannah 
and  to  Elkanah ;  yet  the  narrative  proves  that 
the  life  they  lived  was  not  the  assured,  happy 
domestic  state  of  chaste  marriage. 

Samuel  their  sou  was  blessed  of  God,  and 
raised  to  the  highest  station  the  world  then 
afforded.  High  Priest  and  Ruler  of  Israel. 

Did  the  sins  of  his  parents  escape  punishment 
through  him  ? 


THE  JUDGES  OF  ISRAEL. 


115 


No ;  Samuel  well  understood  that  the  Lord 
had  deposed  the  sons  of  Eli  from  the  priesthood 
because  of  their  evil  conduct,  which  their  father 
tolerated,  though  he  did  not  approve. 

Yet  Samuel  tolerated  the  like  iniquities  in  his 
own  sons.  Inheriting  from  their  grandfather 
the  bad  passions  and  vicious  tastes  which  a  sen- 
sual domestic  life  never  fails  to  develop,  if  it  does 
not  implant,  these  sons  of  Samuel  seem  aliens  to 
his  devout  piety  and  lofty  patriotism.  Their 
outrageous  wickedness  disgusted  the  Hebrew 
people  with  their  theocratic  form  of  govern- 
ment. The  people  found  that  the  sons  of 
Samuel  were  unfit  for  the  office  of  Judges,  and 
the  elders  of  Israel  determined  to  have  "  a  king 
to  rule  over  them." 

This  was  a  great  sin,  because  they,  in  effect, 
rejected  the  government  of  God  which  He  had 
instituted  for  them ;  and  their  change  brought 
its  terrible  results. 

But  the  immediate  cause  of  their  transgressions 
was  the  profligacy  of  Samuel's  sons,  so  that,  in 
reality,  the  catastrophe  resulted  from  this  de- 
scendant of  an  unlawful  marriage. 

Samuel  had  tolerated  his  sons  in  their  diso- 
bedience and  wickedness,  till  these  developed 


116 


THE  JUDGES  OF  ISRAEL. 


more  boldly  tlie  rebellious  passions  of  the 
Israelites. 

Tims  it  is  ever ;  one  sin  tolerated  by  a  human 
judge  or  sovereign,  say  murder  or  adultery,  or 
theft,  or  any  of  the  deadly  transgressions  enu- 
merated in  the  Decalogite,  the  standard  of  public 
morals  would  at  once  become  vitiated,  the  con- 
trast between  good  and  evil  would  be  lessened, 
and  the  peojjle  soon  lose  their  sensibility,  to 
crime  or  evil. 

"  There 's  not  a  sin 
But  takes  its  proper  change  out  still  in  sin, 
If  once  rung  on  the  counter  of  this  world." 

Those  who  advance  or  adopt  the  monstrous 
idea  that  Elkanah's  polygamy  was  right,  and 
approved  of  God,  because  Samuel  was  advanced 
to  the  High  Priesthood,  forget  the  fearful  judg- 
ments this  son  of  an  adulterous  father  was 
raised  up  to  fulfill.  In  him  ended  the  line  of 
Hebrew  Judges.  The  sins  of  his  own  offspring 
broke  up  the  union  of  the  Lord  God  with  the 
Hebrew  State.  From  his  time  to  the  end  of  the 
Jewish  nationality,  the  authority  of  adulterous 
kings  was  placed,  by  the  debased  and  enslaved 
Israelites,  above  the  law  of  the  Most  High. 

Samuel  seems  likewise  raised  up  to  mark  the 


THE  JUDGES  OF  ISRAEL. 


117 


mercy  of  God  to  oppressed  woman,  who  is  often 
compelled  into  sin  by  circumstances  she  has  not 
the  power  to  control.  This  is  true  of  the  sin  of 
polygamy  always.  Woman  would  never  will- 
ingly choose  such  a  degradation.  The  Lord  had 
mercy  on  Hannah ;  as  the  Saviour,  long  after- 
wards, showed  mercy  to  the  woman  taken  in 
adultery. 

Will  any  clergyman  contend  that  women  may 
sometimes  break  the  Seventh  Commandment 
without  sin,  because  that  woman  in  the  Temple 
was  not  condemned  for  what  she  had  done  ? 

And  yet  these  reverend  and  learned  men  are 
constantly  engaged  in  defending  or  softening 
the  sins  of  adultery  in  the  connections  styled 
polygamy,  or  concubinage,  which  have  been 
devised  by  man's  lust  to  evade,  in  the  most  con- 
venient and  respectable  manner,  the  primal  law 
of  marriage. 

It  is  pitiable,  as  well  as  disgusting,  to  read  the 
Biblical  commentators  on  this  history  of  Hannah. 
Instead  of  showing,  from  the  misery  of  his 
family,  that  the  sin  into  which  Elkanah,  a 
Levite,  had  fallen,  was  daily  and  hourly  pun- 
ished, and  therefore  should  be  avoided,  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Scott  tries  his  utmost  skill  to  make  the 


118 


THE  JUDGES  OF  ISRAEL. 


"  two  or  three  wife  "  system  appear  agreeable. 
He  thus  gently  disposes  of  the  sin  of  adultery. 

"  Hannah  seems  to  have  been  the  jfirst  wife  of 
Elkanah  :  but  as  she  was  barren,  it  is  probable 
that  he  took  Peninnah  (as  Abraham  took  Hagar) , 
from  an  impatient  desire  of  children  :  but  the 
event  showed  that  in  deviating  from  the  original 
law  of  marriage,  though  in  a  ma7iner  then  tolerated, 
he  little  consulted  his  own  peace  and  comfort." 

So,  according  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Scott,  there  was 
an  "  original  law  of  marriage ; "  but  he  seeks 
by  his  reasoning  to  make  it  appear  that  if  a  man 
had  an  "  impatient  desire  for  children,"  he  could 
violate  this  law  without  sin.  Nor  does  this 
learned  theologian  have  the  least  respect  to  the 
Seventh  Commandment;  it  never  seems  to  enter 
into  his  mind  that  the  wife  can  be  sinned  against. 
The  husband  is  privileged  to  take  another  wife 
if  it  will  conduce  to  his  own  "  comfort." 

And  this  Rev.  Dr.  Scott  also  asserts,  that 
polygamy  was  "  in  a  manner  then  tolerated." 

By  whom  was  it  tolerated  ?  Was  it  tolerated 
in  the  Moral  law  ?  or  in  the  Mosaic  laws  ?  If 
so,  then  bring  forward  the  clause,  you  ministers 
of  the  Protestant  faith.  Show  us  this  patent  of 
"  toleration  "  for  adultery  \vhich  you,  in  effect, 


THE  JUDGES  OF  ISRAEL. 


119 


say  the  men  of  tlie  Church,  under  the  Okl 
Testament  dispensation,  enjoyed. 

The  pious  Roman  Catholic  divines  do  not 
trouble  themselves  with  any  qualifications.  In 
the  notes  to  an  edition  of  the  Douay  Bible,  not 
long  ago  published  in  New  York,  it  is  asserted, 
regarding  this  marriage  of  Elkanah  with  Pe- 
ninnah  (or  Pheninna),  that  " she  was  only  of 
inferior  dignity,"  and  adds,  *'  at  that  time  po- 
lygamy was  lawful,  as  Moses  insinuates,  if  he 
does  not  expressly  allow  it." 

Moses  neither  insinuates  nor  allows  anything 
of  the  kind,  as  I  have  clearly  shown  in  my  last 
chapter.  Therefore,  in  the  name  of  the  people 
of  the  United  States,  I  call  on  the  reverend 
clergy  of  all  denominations  to  retract  and  dis- 
avow this  impious  Mormon  doctrine. 

Those  who  advance  or  countenance  this  mon- 
strous idea,  lower  the  character  of  Jehovah  infi- 
nitely below  that  of  the  heathen  Jove.  The 
God  of  Olympus  was  consistent.  Licentious 
himself,  he  could  have  sympathy  and  "  tolera- 
tion "  for  men  of  like  conduct.  He  was  one 
with  them. 

But  the  God  of  the  Bible  is  the  God  of  Holi- 
ness, before  whom  "angels  veil  their  faces." 


120 


THE  JUDGES  OF  ISRAEL. 


He  is  SO  pure  tliat  "  the  heavens  are  not  clear 
in  His  sight." 

Shall  men  who  minister  at  His  altar  repre- 
sent this  holy  and  righteous  God,  who,  by  His 
primal  law  of  creation,  made  one  man  for  one 
woman,  and  ordained  their  oneness  in  the  mar- 
riage union  —  shall  these  men  represent  this 
Holy  God  as  pandering  to  the  lusts  of  the  flesh, 
and  "  tolerating,"  for  men,  the  transgression  of 
the  marriage  covenant  ? 

As  we  follow  out  the  results  of  this  pretended 
Divine  license  to  men  (not  merely  to  the  Jewish 
men,  but  all  —  the  moral  law  was  for  man- 
kind), thus  permitted  to  gratify  their  animal 
lusts,  even  at  the  expense  of  the  woman's  hap- 
piness, the  harmony  of  the  family,  the  purity 
of  society,  we  may  well  be  amazed  at  the  fool- 
ishness of  the  interpreters  of  the  Word  of  God, 
who  expect  that  the  world,  if  it  believe  their 
report,  will  believe  the  Bible  is ^  holy  book. 

The  sin  of  Elkanah  was  what  might  be  ex- 
pected to  have  been  committed  in  the  then 
profligate  condition  of  the  Jewish  people.  Its 
opposition  to  the  righteous  law  of  God  was  evi- 
dent in  the  misery  and  confusion  it  introduced. 
This  should  be  pointed  out ;  the  holiness  of  the 


THE  JUDGES  OP  ISRAEL. 


121 


Lord  God  vindicated,  and  the  Commandment 
exalted. 

What  do  we  find?  That  the  preachers  of 
Christ's  righteousness  —  of  the  "  Son  of  God 
made  of  a  woman  "  —  explain  the  law  as  per- 
mitting woman  to  be  polluted  by  an  adulterous 
connection  with  her  husband,  who  has  "another 
wife,  or  concubine !  God  is  represented  as  ex- 
cusing adultery  in  men,  aye,  tolerating  a  sin 
forbidden  in  His  law  as  surely  as  idolatry  is 
forbidden;  a  sin  thgt  leads  more  surely  than 
any  other  in  the  Decalogue  to  idolatry. 

All  this  is  so  amazing  that,  if  the  names  of 

the  men  who  thus  libel  the  Almighty  were  not 

given,  by  their  own  hands,  to  their  assertions,  it 

would  be  impossible  to  believe  that  Protestant 

clergymen  could  be  guilty  of  such  treason  to 

their  Divine  Master.  at. 
11 


CHAPTER  IX. 


DAVID,  KIXG  OF  ISEAEL. 

THE  history  of  David's  life  is  one  of  remark- 
able interest,  alternating,  as  it  does,  be- 
tween scenes  of  the  brightest  glory  and  the 
blackest  shame. 

But  his  glory  stands  in*  the  foreground,  and 
both  his  penitences  and  his  punishments  have 
so  softened  the  dark  outline  of  his  colossal  sins, 
that  learned  theologians,  when  touching  on  his 
transgressions,  seem  always  to  cover  their  eyes, 
or  dip  their  pens  in  his  tears  of  remorse  and  so 
efface  the  Divine  record  against  him. 

Gladly  would  I  follow  this  examj^le.  David 
is  the  hero  of  Bible  history,  and  was  the  be- 
loved hero  of  my  childhood.  How  often  have 
I  stood,  in  imagination,  "  on  the  mountain  with 
Israel,"  and  seen  the  Philistine  —  the  terrible 
Goliath  of  Gath — "whose  height  was  six  cubits 
and  a  span."  No  giant  of  romance  was  he,  but 
the  actual  incarnation  of  evil  power  —  a  cham- 

122 


KINO  DAVID, 


123 


pion  of  liell,  avIio  "defied  the  armies  of  the 
living  God." 

How  I  hated  him  I 

And  then  came  forth  the  young  champion  of 
the  Lord.  Tall,  lithe,  and  graceful,  David 
stood  before  the  eyes  of  my  imagination,  the 
model  of  manly  beauty  and  bravery.  Eagerly 
would  I  have  yielded  all  the  strength  of  my 
puny  arm  to  have  helped  him  in  the  battle  with 
that  huge  Philistine  warrior,  "  the  staff  of  whose 
spear  was  like  a  weaver's  beam." 

Behold  !  —  from  that  stripling's  sling,  held 
lightly  in  his  unarmed  hand,  the  smooth 'stone 
is  hurled  with  unerring  aim,  and  with  a  force 
no  mortal  life  may  withstand.  It  smites  the 
Philistine  in  his  forehead ;  Goliath  of  Gath  has 
fallen  on  his  face  to  the  earth ;  he  lies  j)rostrate  , 
before  the  shepherd  boy,  for  "  the  battle  is  the 
Lord's." 

O !  that  David  had  always  stood  thus  bravely 
on  the  Lord's  side;  that  he  had  crushed  the 
Goliath  of  his  own  passions,  as  he  did  the  Go- 
liath of  Gath ! 

What  shames  and  sorrows  would  have  been 
spared  to  himself  and  to  those  connected  with 
him ;   what  errors   and  humiliations  to  the 


124 


KING  DAVID. 


Church ;  what  sins,  and  excuses  for  sins,  in  the 
world  of  men ! 

It  is  not  my  purpose  to  describe  the  public 
events  of  David's  career.  His  domestic  life  is 
the  point  of  inquiry,  and  the  influences  for  good 
or  for  evil  that  his  family  relations  exerted  on 
himself,  on  the  people  he  ruled,  and  on  the 
Church  of  God. 

All  who  have  read  the  Bible  know  that 
David  was  the  second  king  of  Israel ;  the  suc- 
cessor of  Saul,  and  anointed  as  such  by  Sam- 
uel, before  the  battle  with  Goliath. 

Saul  was  not  aware  of  this  when  he  first  knew 
David,  and  loved  and  promoted  him.  But  soon 
jealousy  of  the  popularity  of  the  young  chief- 
tain was  awakened  in  the  king's  mind,  till,  finally, 
he  "  hated  David,  and  sought  to  slay  him." 

While  appearing  to  favor  David,  Saul  had 
given  him  Michal,  his  daughter,  to  wife.  Da- 
vid thus  became  the  king's  son-in-law. 

Michal  loved  David.  Her  love  must  have 
been  true,  tender,  and  self-sacrificing,  as  it  is 
twice  recorded  she  periled  her  own  safety,  and 
braved  the  anger  of  her  infuriated  father,  by 
saving  David's  life,  and  sending  him  away, 
when  Saul  sought  to  slay  him. 


KING  DAVID. 


125 


So  David  became  a  fugitive  from  tlie  wrath 
of  King  Saul.  In  these  wanderings  and  hidings 
in  the  wilderness,  where  David  jjassed  eight  or 
ten  years,  he  was  joined  by  friends  and  adven- 
turers, till  he  had  a  company  of  several  hun- 
dred followers.  Concealed  in  caves,  or  trusting 
himself  to  the  hospitality  of  the  Philistines, 
David  kept  up  a  sort  of  guerrilla  warfare  against 
the  bands  of  men  that  King  Saul  sent  out  to 
take  the  rebel. 

Living  thus  at  hazard,  and  often  with  the 
heathen  people  around  Israel,  it  is  not  strange 
that  David  acquired  habits  of  thought,  and 
license  of  action,  foreign  to  his  early  training. 

His  wife,  Michal,  had  been,  by  her  father, 
Saul,  given  in  marriage  to  another  man,  Plialti, 
son  of  Laish.  David  may  have  considered 
himself  legally  at  liberty  to  take  another  wife, 
which  he  did,  marrying,  while  he  roved  in  the 
wilderness,  Abigail,  of  Mount  Carmel,  the 
widow  of  Nabal. — See  1  Samuel  xxv. 

But,  not  contented  with  this  one  w^ife,  he 
soon  afterwards  took  Ahinoam,  of  Jezreel. 

Samuel  was  dead.    David  had  no  outward 

check  on  his  selfish  and  sensual  nature.  There 

was  none  to  reprove  or  warn.    And  he  entered 
11* 


126 


KING  DAVID. 


on  that  life  of  polygamy,  so  mean  and  miserable 
for  himself,  so  disgraceful  to  the  Church  of  the 
Old  Covenant. 

A  few  years  passed,  and  then  Saul  and  his 
three  eldest  sons  were  all  slain  on  Mount  Gil- 
boa,  in  battle  with  the  Philistines. 

David  became  King  of  Judah.  He  was 
chosen  by  that  tribe  to  which  he  belonged,  and 
he  began  his  reign  at  Hebron,  where  he  resided 
seven  years  and  six  months.  Then  all  the 
tribes  chose  him  for  their  ruler,  and  he  was 
made  king  over  all  Israel. 

Saul  had  but  one  wife.  He  had  kept  the 
letter  of  the  law,  but  he  had  broken  its  si^irit 
in  taking  one  or  two  concubines,  and  from  these 
sinful  connections  resulted  the  total  ruin  of  his 
house,  and  the  transfer  of  the  allegiance  of  the 
tribes  of  Israel  from  Ish-bosheth,  the  last  sou 
of  Saul,  to  David,  of  the  rival  house.  —  See 
2  Samuel  iii,,  iv.  So  perished  the  family  of 
Saul.  Yet  King  David  did  not  heed  the  les- 
son. It  is  recorded  that,  while  he  dwelt  at 
Hebron,  "  there  were  sons  born "  to  him ;  six 
som,  and  each  son  had  a  different  mother ;  so 
his  harem  was  fast  increasing. 

Six  sons  I   What  became  of  them  ?    The  fate 


KIXG  DAVID. 


127 


of  three  is  on  the  Bible  record.  Amnon  com- 
mitted rape  and  incest  with  his  half-sister,  Ta~ 
mar,  and  he  was  slain  by  his  half-brother  and 
Tamar's  own  brother,  Absalom. 

Absalom  was  afterwards  the  rebellious  son 
that  sought  to  dethrone  and  murder  his  father, 
David,  and  was  himself  slain  by  Joab. 

Adonijah  attempted  to  seize  the  government, 
when  his  father,  King  David,  was  on  his  bed  of 
death,  and  was  at  last  killed  by  order  of  his 
half-brother,  Solomon. 

If  David  had  had  but  one  wife,  the  one 
mother  of  those,  his  children,  seven  brothers, 
reckoning  Solomon,  and  one  sister,  would  they 
have  been  guilty  of  such  horrible  crimes  ? 

If  it  can  be  proved  that  God  has  ever  "  tol- 
erated "  polygamy,  does  it  not  follow,  justly  as 
well  as  necessarily,  that  He  must  also  tolerate 
the  sins  which  always  have  resulted,  and  always 
must  be  develojied  by  this  unnatural  institution, 
so  long  as  human  nature,  and  the  natural  laws 
of  increase  that  govern  the  race  continue  un- 
changed ? 

And  now  David  is  king  over  all  Israel.  He 
has  conquered  the  Jebusites  and  taken  their 
strong  city  of  the  Hills,  where  he  established 


128 


KING  DAVID. 


his  seat  of  government,  tlius  making  Jerusalem 
the  capital  of  Israel,  from  that  clay  to  this. 

"And  David  took  him  more  concubines  and 
wives  out  of  Jerusalem,  after  he  was  come  from 
Hebron  :  and  there  were  yet  sons  and  daughters 
born  to  David." — 2  Samuel  v.  13. 

Then  follows  a  list  of  names,  eleven  sons ; 
these,  with  the  six  previously  enumerated,  give 
seventeen  sons  of  David.  He  had  j)i'obably, 
at  that  time,  as  many  (so  called)  wives  and  con- 
cubines ;  yet  all  these  did  not  fill  up  the  measure 
of  his  lust. 

Tlie  story  of  the  murder  of  Uriah,  by  order 
of  King  David,  who  had  seduced  the  beautiful 
wife  of  that  good  man,  a  faithful  servant  and 
soldier  of  the  king,  all  who  read  the  Bible 
know.  But  here  I  must  give,  somewhat  at 
length,  my  explanation  of  a  passage  in  this 
Bible  history  of  David's  great  sin.  This  pas- 
sage priests  and  monks  have  interpreted  to 
mean  that  the  Lord  God  gave  to  David  license 
to  take  the  wives  of  his  dead  master,  Saul. 
This  would  excuse,  if  not  justify,  a  plurality  of 
wives. 

All  readers  of  the  Bible  know  that  Nathan, 
the  prophet,  was  sent  to  reprove  King  David : 


KING   DAVID.  129 

(read  the  wliole  —  2  Samuel  xii.  —  we  give  this 
remarkable  passage,  only.) 

3  But  the  poor  man  had  nothing,  save  one 
little  ewe  lamb,  *  *  *  *  it  eat  of  his 
own  meat,  and  drank  of  his  own  cup,  and  lay 
in  his  bosom,  and  was  unto  him  as  a  daughter. 

^  ^  ^ 

7  Thus  saith  the  Lord  God  of  Israel,  I  an- 
ointed thee  king  over  Israel,  and  I  delivered 
thee  out  of  the  hand  of  Saul ; 

8  And  I  gave  thee  thy  master's  house,  and 
thy  master's  wives  into  thy  bosom,  and  gave 
thee  the  house  of  Israel  and  of  Judah. 

Before  going  further,  the  reader  should  know  . 
that  the  word  wife,  and  the  word  woman,  are 
used  in  the  Hebrew  language  as  in  the  French, 
the  word  femme,  in  the  latter,  meaning  both 
wife  and  woman.  The  translators  of  the  Bible 
made  the  mistake  of  giving  the  word  wives,^ 
when  they  should  have  used  the  word  women : 
then  the  passage  would  read,  that  the  Lord  gave 
"thy  mastei'^s  women  into  thy  hosom^ 

*  That  the  translators  are  not  particular  in  the  translation 
of  this  word  wives,  see  verse  11  of  this  same  chapter,  where 
the  prophet,  in  his  reproof  of  David,  referring  to  his  punish- 
inent,  alludes  to  his  wives.  Yet,  when  the  punishment  came, 
these  "  wives"  are  termed,  by  the  same  translators,  " concu- 
Innci." — See  2  Saynud  xvi.  21,  22. 


130 


KIKG  DAVID. 


The  pro23liet,  in  his  rebuke  of  David's  sin, 
twice  uses  the  word  bosom,  and  in  both  ex- 
amples it  is  clear  that  the  idea  was  the  same. 
He  meant  simply  to  express — or,  rather,  illus- 
trate— the  tenderness  of  compassion  which  the 
strong  and  fortunate  should  feel  for  the  weak 
and  suffering,  who  were  dependent  upon  theui 
for  support  and  comfort. 

The  first  example,  in  the  parable  of  Nathan, 
was  the  beautiful  wife  of  Uriah — his  ''one  Utile 
ewe  lamb,  which  lay  in  his  bosom,  and  was  unto 
him  as  a  daughterr 

Can  this  similitude  be  tortured  into  the  mean- 
ing of  unholy  lust,  or  even  into  conjugal  love? 
Does  not  the  word  bosom  here  imply  the  in- 
stinctive tenderness  that  watches  over  the  wel- 
fare of  a  trusting  dej^endent,  securing,  under 
Divine  Providence,  the  safety  and  happiness  of 
its  object? 

In  this  spirit  w'e  must  interpret  the  second 
example.  The  Lord  gave  the  women  of  Saul's 
family  into  the  bosom  of  King  David ;  that  is, 
into  his  compassionate  regard — his  sustaining 
tenderness ;  he  must  comfort  and  support  this 
family  iji  their  grief,  and  lift  their  hearts  to  the 
light  of  hope.    The  whole  rebuke  was  in  the 


KINO    D  A     I  D  . 


131 


allegorical  or  figurative  style.  We  know  that 
it  could  no  more  mean  a  license  to  David  to 
marry  Saul's  women  than  it  could  mean  that 
Bath-sheba  was  Uriah's  ewe  lamb.  Besides,  Saul 
had  but  one  wife.  David  had  married  her 
daughter,  Michal.  Did  the  prophet  mean  that 
David,  to  his  great  guilt,  might  add  the  name- 
less crime  of  marrying  his  Avife's  own  mother ! 

These  crimes  of  David  are  too  prominently 
distinct  for  concealment  or  excuse.  Theolo- 
gians even  venture  to  condemn  these  carnal, 
cruel  and  cowardly  sins,  because  God's  sentence 
of  condemnation  was  thundered  against  them, 
and  David  was  punished  immediately,  by  Di- 
vine authority. 

Not  only  this,  but  he  was  under  a  sentence 
of  perpetual  punishment ;  the  sword  was  never 
to  depart  from  his  house.  This  fearful  state,  in 
which  David  was,  by  his  sin,  placed  for  life,  is 
seldom  or  never  the  theme  of  preachers  or  com- 
mentators. They  always  dwell  on  the  penittence 
of  the  sinner,  as  though,  because  he  was  for- 
given, his  sin  was  "  canceled  "  —  was  forgiven. 

Never  yet,  on  earth,  was  there  a  single  sin 
canceled,  so  that  the  sinner  and  the  world  were 
not  left  worse  for  the  transgression. 


132 


KING  DAVID. 


True  it  is  that  tlie  "  blood  of  Christ  cleanseth 
from  all  sin."  The  soul  of  the  penitent  is  re- 
deemed, and  his  sins  will  not  be  reckoned 
against  him  at  tKe  last  day. 

But  if  a  man  have  committed  murder,  will 
his  penitence  restore  the  dead  victim  to  life? 
Did  David's  repentance  bring  Uriah  from  his 
bloody  grave? 

If  he  have  wronged  woman,  will  his  tears 
and  prayers,  and  even  God's  forgiveness  of  his 
sin,  restore  her  to  purity  and  honor  ?  Is  Bath- 
sheba  thus  cleared  from  the  stain  ? 

"Was  David's  soul  cleansed  from  the  "  perilous 
stufif"  of  blood-guiltiness  and  adultery? 

Let  his  own  self-condemnings  answer.  No, 
no!  To  a  real  penitent,  the  memory  of  his 
wicked  deeds,  and  the  sorrows  these  have  caused 
to  others,  will  be  thorns  in  his  jiatli  of  life; 
scorpions  poisoning  his  heart's  blood;  swords 
piercing  to  the  marrow  of  his  bones.  —  See 
Psalms  xxxviii.  and  xxxix. 

Read  carefully  the  records  of  David's  family 
11  life;  the  crimes  and  the  doom  of  Ajnnon ;  the 
n  rebellion  of  Absalom,  with  all  its  revolting,  and 
i|  tragical,  and  heart-rending  details;  and  then 
■  say  if  you  can,  as  a  Christian  man,  make  the 


KINO  DAVID. 


133 


assertion  that  God  ever  tolerated  —  ever  "  en- 
couraged"—  tlie  system  of  a  plurality  of  wives, 
■which  was  the  procuring  cause  of  these  horrors. 

Why,  God  was  punishing  David  for  his  po- 
lygamy every  day  of  his  life.  The  shames  and 
sorrows  of  the  king  came  by  and  through  his 
own  family.  There  is  not  one  of  his  seventeen 
sons  of  whom  any  good  is  recorded,  except  Solo- 
mon, and  we  shall  see,  in  the  next  chapter,  how 
he  had  profited  by  his  harem  training. 

The  sinful  connections  of  David  had  become 
so  inwoven  with  his  habits  of  kingly  rule,  that 
it  does  not  appear  as  if  he  ever  made  an  attempt 
to  free  himself  from  the  pollution ;  but  his  re- 
morse and  griefs  are  faithfully  confessed.  His 
war-songs  are  grand  and  triumphant  strains, 
when  he  chants  the  victories  God  had  given  him 
over  his  enemies  without.  But  his  penitential 
psalms  show  how  deeply  he  felt  that  his  enemies 
within,  his  own  evil  passions,  and  lusts  of  the 
flesh,  often  most  fatally  enslaved  him,  blighting 
his  best  resolves,  and  bringing  him  down  to  the 
mire  of  shame  and  the  lowest  deeps  of  sorrow. 
(See  Psalms  xxxviii.,  li.,  Ixxxviii.,  cii.,  and 
cxxx.) 

And  now  there  is  another  manifestation  of  the 

12 


134 


KING  DAVID. 


evil  influence  of  David's  harem  life  on  his  own 
character :  his  pride  hecomes  rampant. 

The  history  of  those  nations  where  polygamy 
is  established  always  displays  the  pride  and  van- 
ity of  the  rulers.  What  amazing  power  these 
voluptuous  kings  assume!  How  blasphemously 
they  arrogate  to  themselves  the  attributes  of  the 
Almighty  !  This  pride  results,  chiefly,  from  the 
degradation  of  woman's  nature  before  their  cruel 
lusts. 

"The  woman  is  the  glory  of  the  man." 

Thus  saith  the  Bible.  But  then  the  man  must 
be  "  the  husband  of  one  wife ; "  he  must  love 
her  only,  hold  her  the  "  chaste,"  the  "  honored," 
the  "companion  of  his  youth,"  the  "help-meet 
for  him,"  —  "  made  to  be  with  him."  No  other 
connection  is  marriage,  and  from  no  other  does 
the  "  glory,"  which  the  Apostle  recognizes,  rest 
on  the  husband. 

Every  observant  person  will  admit  that  no 
success  so  elevates  a  man  in  his  own  esteem  as 
the  favor  of  women.  That  he  is  beloved  by  a 
pure,  tender,  high-hearted  woman, —  what  an  in- 
centive to  worthy  aims  and  glorious  deeds  is  this 
knowledge,  when  the  man  is  conscientious,  hon- 
orable, and  sincere ! 


KING  DAVID. 


135 


But  let  power  and  lust  have  corrupted  the 
soul  of  that  man,  because  he  is  able  to  command 
the  caresses  of  the  woman  to  whom  he  should 
sue  and  always  honor ;  let  him  be  able  to  com- 
mand not  only  one  wife,  but  "two  or  three 
wives,"  or  as  many  as  his  own  carnal  mind,  and 
the  devil,  who  jSnds  easy  access  to  such  minds, 
may  suggest,  and  what  intense  self  -  sufficiency 
Avill  be  manifested !  What  great  swelling  words 
he  will  utter!  —  what  fantastic  titles  of  glory  he 
will  invent  for  himself  as  a  substitute  for  that 
"real  "glory"  which  the  "one  wife"  would  give, 
which  the  "  virtuous  woman "  only  can  confer 
to  "  crown  her  husband  !  " 

The  man  who  degrades  the  true  wife- into  the 
harem  mistress,  will  disobey  or  deny  the  true 
God.  Thus  David  disobeyed  Him  when  he 
sent  Joab  forth  to  number  the  people. 

God  had  declared  to  the  Patriarchs,  of  their 
seed,  that  "  no  man  shall  number  them."  But 
David  was  lord  of  a  harem ;  his  pride  was 
uplifted  by  the  flatteries  of  the  women  he  had 
degraded  ;  by  his  sinful  example  even  the  cor- 
rupt Israelites  had  become  more  sinful  —  and 
David  through  them  was  punished.  He  was 
left  to  disobey  God. 


136 


KING  DAVID. 


For  this  audacious  attempt  to  learn  what  was 
to  be  hidden,  a  pestilence  destroyed  "  from  Dan 
even  to  Beer-sheba  seventy  thousand  men." 
(2  Sam.  xxiv.) 

In  the  massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew,  the  high- 
est computation  of  the  slain  is  eighty  thousand. 
Recent  Protestant  writers  lower  greatly  this 
number. 

The  authors  of  that  terrible  massacre  are  held 
up  as  sinners  of  the  deepest  and  darkest  abom- 
inations, and  the  indignant  scorn  and  detestation 
of  the  Protestant  world  is  invoked  against  them. 

How  is  this  sin  of  David,  that  brought  as 
great,  if  not  greater,  destruction  on  the  men  of 
Israel,  treated  by  Protestant  divines  ?  They  can 
never  hear  or  repeat  the  name  of  Catherine  de 
Medicis  without  execrations  and  horror. 

Do  they  in  their  writings  or  teachings  ever 
dwell  on  this  massacre,  which  David's  arrogance 
and  disobedience  brought  on  his  own  people, 
and  condemn  his  pride  and  lust  which  had  such 
results?  And  Avhile  liumbly  thanking  God  for 
His  great  mercy  extended  to  such  a  sinner,  who 
did  indeed  repent,  do  Protestant  divines  warn 
the  men  of  their  flocks  against  the  lusts  of  Da- 
vid, that  brought  him  down  to  the  door  of  the 


KING  DAVID. 


137 


pit,  and,  as  though  he  was  crushed  in  the  wine- 
press of  God's  wrath,  forced  out  such  fearful 
revelations  of  his  soul's  agonies  ? — See  Fsaim  li.* 
But  David's  deepest  humiliation  was  his  last. 
He  did  not  breathe  this  to  his  divine  harp,  for 
the  strings  were  broken,  his  fingers  palsied,  and 
his  voice  was  sunken  to  the  hoarse  whisper  of 
death. 

Let  us  examine  this  last  scene.  Nothing 
could  more  surely  mark  the  low  sensuality  and 

*  Some  portion  of  my  Christian  readers  entertain,  probably, 
the  idea  that  "King  David"  was  the  author  of  all  the 
"Psalms"  that  are  printed  in  the  "book"  bearing  his  name. 
This  is  a  mistake.  The  collection,  as  it  is  found  in  our 
Bibles,  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  Hebrew  Anthology,  or,  per- 
haps more  fitly,  as  the  Hymn-book  of  the  Hebrew  Church. 
David  is  named  in  the  title  as  the  chief  writer,  although  six 
names  are  given  in  addition  to  his.  There  are  seventy-one 
psalms  attributed  to  David;  far  the  greater  portion  bear  in- 
trinsic evidence  of  having  been  written  by  him  when  he  was 
young,  probably  between  the  ages  of  eighteen  and  thirty;  a 
period  when  he  was  a  favorite  in  the  family  of  Saul  —  "the 
king's  son-in-law  "  —  or  the  proscribed  rebel,  fleeing  and  fight- 
ing for  his  own  life.  During  these  vicissitudes,  David's  faith 
in  God  was  fervent,  and  his  poetic  genius  kindled  with  its 
holiest  flame  of  love,  zeal,  and  devotion.  In  marked  contrast 
with  these  glorious  hymns  are  the  "  penitential  psalms "  of 
David,  written  while  he  was  indeed  king  of  Israel,  but  a  mis- 
erable sinner  before  God.  These  confessions  and  lamentations 
are  the  sad  testimonies  of  his  guilt,  but  also  the  cheering  proof 
of  his  penitence. 

li*  . 


138 


KING  DAVID. 


open  profligacy  of  the  servants  of  King  David, 
and  their  utter  lack  of  loyalty  for  their  great 
master  —  of  reverence  for  his  noble  nature,  and 
for  the  eminent  services  which,  notwithstanding 
the  bad  example  of  his  home-life,  he  had  ren- 
dered to  his  country  and  to  his  God.  His  valor 
and  his  genius  had  made  the  Hebrew  name  glo- 
rious when  lie  lay  helpless  in  their  power.  At 
the  age  of  seventy  years,  David  is  represented 
as  "  very  old,"  benumbed,  and  helpless  ;  "  they 
covered  him  with  clothes,  but  he  got  no  heat." 
He  was  dying.  The  mock  sympathy  of  these 
false  friends  suggested  the  remedy. 

The  story  of  the  fair  Abishag  *  should  be  read 
in  the  Bible,  1  Kings  i.  to  the  close  of  the  second 
chapter.  The  plan  of  the  \ticked  men  who 
counseled  the  king  and  selected  the  chief  actress 
in  this  drama,  which  proved  so  tragical  in  its 
results  to  the  inventors,  so  blessed  to  the  man 
they  had  intended  to  destroy,  soul  as  well  as 

*  Abisliag  must  have  been  concerned  in  the  plot  to  dethrone 
King  David ;  the  conspirators  had  selected  her  to  minister  to 
him.  Tliat  Solomon  had  learned  the  secrets  of  the  plot,  and 
knew,  when  Adouijah  asked  for  Abishag  to  be  his  wife,  that 
another  conspiracy  to  make  Adonijah  king  was  contemplated, 
seems  certain  from  his  language.  He  immediately  gave  the 
order  that  Adouijah  should  be  slain. —  1  Kings  ii.  17-25. 


KING  DAVID. 


139 


character — should  be  studied  in  the  Divine 
liglit  of  Sacred  history. 

That  there  was  a  plot  to  dethrone  King  David, 
even  while  he  lived,  and  give  the  government 
into  the  hands  of  Adonijah,  his  illegitimate  son, 
is  proven — because  these  conspirators  did  pro- 
claim him  king.  But  they  also  sought  to  de- 
grade David  in  the  eyes  of  his  people,  by 
showing  him  as  a  driveling  dotard  in  the  arms 
of -Abishag ;  his  own  true  wife,  Bath-sheba,  was 
banished  from  his  chamber,  and  she  could  not 
warn  her  husband  of  their  plans,  nor  plead  for 
her  son  Solomon. 

But  David  is  dying !  In  peace  ?  Before  his 
eyes  are  darkened  by  the  black  shadows  of  death, 
sees  he  a  group  of  devoted,  dutiful  sons  gather- 
ing around  his  couch  ?  Do  these  come,  joining 
hands  in  fraternal  sympathy,  in  their  common 
loss,  as  they  weep  together  over  the  last  fare- 
well of  their  revered  father  ? 

David  had  sung  of  the  blessings  that  children 
confer  on  a  father.  He  might  have  boasted  a 
quiver  full  "  of  these  "  arrovfs."  Seventeen 
sons  he  had  had  —  the  Chronicles  reckon 
nineteen.  Have  these  sons  made  him  strong  ? 
Have  they  made  him  blessed  ? 


140 


KING  DAVID. 


Let  the  shades  of  Amnon  and  Absalom 
reply. 

Alas !  for  David.  The  royal  head  is  laid  low 
in  helplessness  and  sorrow.  The  grave  is  open- 
ing beneath  his  feet,  while  his  favorite  son, 
Adonijah,  whom  his  father  had  not  displeased 
at  any  time  in  saying,  "  Why  hast  thou  done 
so?" — this  son,  followed  by  all  the  king's  sons 
save  Solomon,  and  all  King  David's  chief 
officers  gathered  together,  are  feasting,  and  re- 
joicing, and  shouting  "  God  save  King  Adoni- 
jah !  "  (1  Kin^s  i.) 

Now  comes  the  graphic  picture  of  seraglio 
life,  such  as  polygamy  always  exhibits. 

David  had  sworn  to  the  wronged  Bath-sheba 
that,  after  him,  her  son  Solomon  should  be 
king  and  sit  on  his  father's  throne.  She 
claimed  the  fulfillment  of  the  royal  oath.  David 
dared  not  refuse  her.  He  roused  himself  from 
the  stupor  of  mental  decay,  from  the  lethargy 
of  dissolving  nature,  to  fulfill  his  promise  con- 
cerning Solomon.  King  David  did  this,  though 
he  must  have  known  that,  by  thus  placing  on 
his  throne  the  son  of  Bath-sheba,  he  was  signing 
the  death-warrant  of  Adonijah.  David  must 
have  felt  that  these  his  sons,  whose  mothers, 


KINO  DAVID. 


141 


from  tlieir  position,  were  enemies,  had  been 
trained  to  hate  each  other  —  and  all  the  more 
cruel,  because  of  their  relationship,  was  the 
thirst  of  their  tiger-fury  for  each  other's  blood. 
Only  in  blood  could  this  rivalry  and  hate  be 
satiated. 

Thus  King  David  closed  his  eventful  career, 
leaving  rebellion  in  his  own  family,  and  a  legacy 
of  revenge  to  the  son  he  "made  his  successor. 

Glorious  in  personal  beauty  and  manly 
strength,  gifted  with  genius  above  all  the  in- 
spired writers,  and  blessed  with  the  loving  favor 
of  the  Lord,  that  never  wholly  forsook  him, 
even  in  his  most  sinful  deeds,  his  family  life 
presents,  from  the  time  he  married  his  "two 
wives,"  an  almost  unbroken  record  of  his  trans- 
gressions of  God's  law  of  marriage. 

1st.  He  set  aside  the  primal  law,  one  man 
and  one  woman. 

2d.  He  broke  the  Seventh  Commandment. 

3d.  He  disobeyed  the  particular  law  of  Moses 
that  the  Hebrews  should  not  intermarry  with 
the  heathen. 

4th.  He  transgressed  the  particular  law  for  a 
king ;  that  he  should  "  not  multiply  wives  to 
himself." 


142 


KING  DAVID. 


"Was  he  not  punished  for  these  fourfold  sins 
against  God  and  against  woman  ? 

The  history  of  David's  life,  public  as  well  as 
private,  will  answer. 

The  evils,  sorrows,  and  shames  his  transgres- 
sions brought  upon  himself  and  others,  are  mul- 
tiplied on  every  page  of  the  sacred  narrative. 

The  mercy  of  God  is  shown  to-him  in  this  — 
he  was  not  left  to  harden  himself  in  iniquity. 
He  was  constantly  under  the  rod.  The  Holy 
Spirit  was  striving  with  his  carnal  nature  al- 
ways. As  St.  Paul  describes  the  struggle  between 
his  sensual  and  his  spiritual  nature,  thus  was 
David,  in  a  struggle  to  which  his  battle  with 
Goliath  of  Gath  was  but  as  child's  play.  David 
was  purified,  as  by  fire,  in  the  judgments  that 
overtook  him. 

Is  there  a  shadow  of  proof,  from  the  life  of 
this  king,  warrior,  poet,  and  believer,  as  he  was, 
which,  when  honestly  searched  in  reference  to 
the  dealings  of  God  with  him  —  is  there  a 
shadow  of  proof,  I  say,  to  support  the  assertion 
that  his  polygamy  was  sanctioned,  permitted,  or 
tolerated,  or  "  encouraged,"  either  by  the  law  or 
by  the  favor  of  the  righteous  God  ?  * 

*  It  is  not  the  Bible  record  of  David's  family  life  that  lias 


KINO  DAVID. 


143 


Thanks  to  our  Heavenly  Father,  that  David 
did  not  die  as  the  fool  dieth,  at  enmity  with  his 
Maker !  Like  Jacob,  whose  name  he  invoked 
in  "his  last  words"  (1  Kings),  this  old  mon- 
arch was  roused  to  repentance  and  to  duty. 
David  was  again  the  man  who  w^as  raised  up  on 
high  —  the  anointed  of  the  God  of  Jacob  —  the 
sweet  psalmist.  He  was  again  the  servant  of 
the  Living  God,  and  knew  that  "  He  who  ruleth 
over  men  must  be  just." 

brought  shame  on  the  Old  Covenant  Church.  The  mistakes, 
glosses,  and  false  interpretations  of  the  sacred  text,  charging 
the  scandal  of  David's  polygamy  on  the  God  of  Holiness,  is  the 
great  sin  of  the  Biblical  expounders  from  the  fourth  century  to 
the  present  time.  From  this  libel  on  God's  Word  is  drawn  the 
power  of  the  Romish  Church  to  grant  indulgences  for  sin. 
From  this  fruitful  source  of  error  they  find  a  pretence  to  keep 
the  Holy  Bible  from  the  people,  as  a  book  unfit  for  family 
reading. 

The  question  now  to  be  settled,  is  —  Do  the  clergy  of  the 
Protestant  Churches  believe  the  interpretation  which  the 
Romish  priesthood  have  given  respecting  the  Bible  law  of 
marriage,  namely,  that  the  Lord  God  set  aside  His  own  law  in 
the  case  of  Abraham,  of  Jacob,  and  of  David  —  good  men,  par- 
ticularly favored.  Will  not  the  Protestant  clergy  of  America 
take  up  this  sacred  task  of  vindicating  God's  Word  ?  Come 
in  the  strength  of  faith,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  will  lead  you  into 
the  knowledge  of  Divine  truth.  Come,  now,  before  heathen- 
ism and  infidelity  have  defiled  our  goodly  land,  as  the  idol 
temples  built  by  Solomon  defiled  Jerusalem. 


144 


KING  DAVID. 


This  resurrection,  as  it  were,  from  the  dead, 
came  over  David  when  the  prophet  Nathan  en- 
tered his  chamber,  and  told  him  that  Adonijah 
was  proclaimed  king  by  all  the  captains  of  the 
host,  and  all  the  king's  sons,  excepting  Solo- 
mon —  and  Nathan  inquired  if  this  was  done  by 
David's  order. 

Then  it  was  that  the  conscience  of  the  royal 
sinner  was  fully  awakened  to  his  condition ;  he 
must  make  it  known  that  he  acknowledged  his 
lawful  wife,  and  her  son  Solomon  as  the  only 
true  heir  to  the  throne.  Bath-sheba  was  re- 
called, and  the  oath  to  her  (David's  only  legal 
wife,  whom  he  had  married  after  the  death  of 
Michal)  was  renewed. 

Then,  as  though  the  loving  favor  of  the  Lord 
had  restored  to  David  strength  of  faith  and 
power  of  will  to  serve  Him,  as  when  he  slew  the 
mighty  Philistine,  he  issued  his  order  to  -have 
Solomon  anointed  king,  and  said : 

"  For  he  shall  be  king  in  my  stead :  and  I 
have  appointed  him  to  be  ruler  over  Israel  and 
over  Judah." 

Now  came  the  great  triumjih  of  David  over 
the  enemies  of  his  soul  and  of  hi^  government, 
the  hour  of  exaltation  before  his  people.  By 


KING  DAVID. 


145 


his  command,  his  promised  son  was  seated  on 
the  throne  of  his  kingdom.  The  shout  went 
forth  —  "  God  save  King  Solomon !  "  And  Da- 
vid said : 

"  Blessed  be  the  Lord  God  of  Israel,  which 
hath  given  one  to  sit  on  my  throne  this  day, 
mine  eyes  even  seeing  it." 

Adonijah  and  his  rebel  supporters,  smitten 
with  fear,  as  though  "  hail-stones  and  coals  of 
fire"  had  fallen  upon  them,  fled  and  submitted. 
Solomon's  reign  began  as  the  rising  sun,  dif- 
fusing its  radiance  and  scattering  the  dark 
clouds  of  night ;  it  seemed  to  bring  the  holi- 
ness of  Heaven  nearer  earth. 

David,  no  longer  king,  had  a  more  glorious 
title.  The  Lord  had  said,  "  Thy  sins  are  for- 
given"— he  was  again  the  man  after  God's  own 
heart.  He  has  put  away  the  strange  women 
from  his  love,  and  their  children  from  his  in- 
heritance. David's  last  legacy  to  his  successor, 
Solomon,  was : 

"  Keep  the  charge  of  the  Lord  thy  God,  to 
walk  in  His  ways,  to  keep  His  statutes,  and  His 
commandments,  and  His  judgments,  and  His  tes- 
timonies, as  it  is  written  in  the  law  of  Moses." — 
1  Kings  ii.  3. 

13 


146 


KING  DAVID. 


This  was  the  culminating  point  of  King  Da- 
vid's earthly  glory  and  happiness.  Feeling  his 
sins  forgiven,  his  whole  nature  seemed  to  cry 
out,  in  the  ecstasy  of  faith,  to  the  Lord  of  ho- 
liness, "  Whom  have  I  in  heaven  but  Thee  ? 
And  there  is  none  upon  earth  that  I  desire  be- 
side Thee." 


CHAPTER  X. 

SOLOMON  THE  WISE. 

THE  great  types  of  human  character  stand 
out  alone  in  the  "Word  of  God  as  they  do 
in  profane  history. 

The  righteousness  of  Noah ;  the  faith  of 
Abraham ;  the  meekness  of  Moses  ;  the  patience 
pf  Job ;  the  piety  of  David ;  the  wisdom  of  Solo- 
mon:—  has  the  particular  excellence  embodied 
in  each  name  ever  had  its  counterpart  or  supe- 
rior in  the  gifts  of  God  bestowed  on  the  sons  of 
men  ? 

And  yet,  however  humbling  it  may  be  to 
human  reason  to  confess  it,  do  we  not  see  that 
each  one  of  these  great  exemplars  was  guilty 
of  sins  which  violated,  in  the  most  positive 
manner,  the  characteristic  excellence  with  which 
each  had  been  endowed  ? 

The  righteous  Noah  was  drunken  with  wine. 
The  faithful  Abraham,  distrusting  God's  prom- 
ise to  give  him  an  heir  by  his  true  wife,  com- 

147 


148 


SOLOMON. 


mitted  adultery  with  her  slave.  The  meek 
Moses  in  outbursts  of  sudden  wrath  "killed  the 
Egyptian  "  and  "  rebelled  "  against  God.  'The 
patient  Job  cursed  the  day  in  which  he  was 
born.  The  pious  David  was  a  betrayer,  a  mur- 
derer, an  adulterer,  and  a  rebel  to  the  God  he 
so  devoutly  loved. 

The  wise  Solomon,  wisest  of  all  the  kings,  by 
"the  wickedness  of  folly"  destroyed  all  the 
good  committed  to  his  "  excellency  of  wisdom." 

What  do  these  records  of  Holy  Writ  teach  ? 
Not  surely  to  lower  the  standard  of  God's  holy 
law  to  suit  human  imperfection ;  nor  yet  to 
imitate  the  deeds  which  disgraced  the  lives  of 
such  men,  and  for  which  they  were,  each  and 
all,  punished  most  signally ;  either  by  Divine 
Power  or  by  human  agency  Divinely  directed. 

Take  the  drunkenness  of  Noah ;  w^as  it  re- 
corded for  example,  or  for  warning,  to  the  chil- 
dren of  men? 

In  the  light  of  such  proofs  of  the  imperfect- 
ness  of  men's  righteousness,  the  folly  of  human 
wisdom  and  the  wickedness  of  the  natural  heart, 
let  us  turn  to  "  God  our  righteousness,"  and  be- 
seech Him  to  pardon  our  sins,  keep  us  from 


SOLOMON. 


149 


temptation,  and  strengthen  us  both  to  discern 
the  truth  and  do  the  right. 

Then  -we  shall  no  longer  believe  that  an 
example  of  wickedness,  however  high  in  the 
world's  estimation,  or  excused  by  the  prescrip- 
tive license  of  power,  rank,  learning,  riches, 
or  religion,  could  have  been  "  tolerated  "  or  "  en- 
couraged "  by  the  God  of  Holiness. 

Were  the  sins  of  Solomon  "  tolerated  "  ?  The 
annals  of  the  world  furnish  no  parallel  to  the 
wonderful  advantages  placed  at  the  disposal  of 
this  young  man. 

Crowned  by  his  father  David,  the  greatest 
warrior  and  genius  of  his  age,  who  resigned, 
while  in  life,  his  sceptre  and  diadem  to  this  his 
chosen  son,  Solomon  at  the  age  of  eighteen 
ascended  the  throne  of  Israel. 

No  doubt  he  was  peerless  in  manly  beauty 
and  strength,  as  both  his  j^arents  were  celebrated 
for  their  personal  perfections.  To  these  gifts 
of  nature,  Solomon  must  have  added  all  the 
culture  of  mind  and  accomplishments  of  art 
and  manners  which  the  court  of  his  royal  father 
afforded. 

King  David,  whose  soul -inspirations  have 
moulded  the  souls  of  men  to  a  loftier  and  more 

13* 


150 


SOLOMON. 


divine  standard  of  taste  in  poetry  and  music 
than  any  other  of  the  inspired  writers,  must 
have  left  to  his  son  rich  legacies  of  art,  and 
the  knowledge  of  many  excellent  inventions. 
But  the  richest  legacy  of  all  was  the  building 
of  the  House  of  God. 

David  had  projected  this  great  work.  Being 
forbidden  to  go  on  because  he  had  "  shed  much 
blood,"  the  Prophet  Nathan  assured  him  that 
his  son,  to  whom  God  would  "  give  peace  and 
quietness,"  should  build  the  Lord's  House. 

So  David  had  prepared  largely  for  the  work, 
and  left  the  "  pattern  of  the  House,"  and  all 
the  gold  and  rich  materials  he  had  collected,  to 
Solomon. 

This  then  was  the  career  opened  before  the 
young  king  of  Israel:  a  reign  of  peace  and 
prosperity  over  God's  chosen  people ;  and  the 
immortal  glory  of  connecting  his  own  name 
with  the  building  of  the  first  Temple  to  Jehovah 
ever  made  by  human  hands.  The  crowning  of 
King  Solomon  has  been  recorded  in  the  history 
of  his  father.  His  first  acts  after  the  death  of 
David  were  to  carry  out  the  commands  of  his 
father.  In  this  he  showed  his  filial  obedience 
and  indomitable  power  of  will. 


SOLOMON. 


151 


The  next  record  is  of  Ins  marriage  with  the 
daughter  of  the  King  of  Egypt.  This  princess 
is  the  only  wife  of  Solomon  mentioned  for  more 
than  twenty  years ;  and  as  she  is  repeatedly  re- 
ferred to,  and  seems  to  have  been  treated  with 
great  consideration  — "  Solomon  built  her  a 
house "  —  it  seems  clear  that  he  had  no  other 
wife  at  that  time. 

He  had  not  then  become  a  voluptuary,  be- 
cause it  is  recorded  that  Solomon  loved  the 
Lord,  walking  in  the  statutes  of  David,  his 
father." 

"The  statutes  of  David,"  not  his  example; 
the  former  were  righteous,  always. 

Thus  Solomon  began  his  reign,  and  doubtless 
proposed  to  himself  a  useful,  honorable  and 
holy  life.  Still,  even  in  his  pious  feelings  and 
religious  duties,  he  showed  that  love  of  display 
which  marks  the  vain-glorious  imagination  — 
"he  sacrificed  and  burnt  incense  in  high 
places." 

He  was  devoted  in  his  piety,  and  here  his 
taste  for  magnificence  first  showed  itself.  On 
Mount  Gibeon  he  sacrificed  a  thousand  burnt- 
offerings  ;  such  a  display  as  probably  had  never 
before  been  witnessed.    It  was  here  that  he  had 


152  SOLOMON. 

liis  remarkable  dream.  The  Lord  appeared  to 
liim  and  said : 

"Ask  what  I  shall  give  thee." 

Solomon  chose  wisdom,  "  an  understanding 
heart  to  judge  the  people,  and  to  discern  be^ 
tween  the  good  and  the  evil." 

"  His  speech  pleased  the  Lord." 

How  emphatically  that  brief  sentence  marks 
the  great  favor  accorded  to  this  young  king. 

God  granted  him  his  prayer,  endowing  him 
with  wisdom  and  understanding,  and  declaring 
to  Solomon,  "  there  was  none  like  thee,  before 
thee,  neither  after  thee  shall  any  arise  like  unto 
thee." 

And  then,  because  Solomon  had  done  well  in 
choosing  wisdom,  God  gave  him  both  riches  and 
honor,  and  added  the  promise  of  long  life,  if  he 
kept  the  statutes  of  the  Lord. 

Here,  then,  was  all  that  the  unregencrated 
soul  of  man  has  coveted  for  earthly  happiness : 
wisdom,  wealth,  honor,  long  life  —  the  first 
three  bestowed ;  the  fourth  promised,  if  

Did  Solomon  then  doubt  his  own  ability  and 
purpose  to  fulfill  the  conditions? 

The  first  proof  of  Solomon's  remarkable  wis- 
dom was  his  judgment  between  the  two  harlots. 


SOLOMON. 


153 


This  deserves  to  be  well  considered.  It  demon- 
strates his  wonderful  insight  and  knowledge  of 
that  difficult  problem,  a  woman's  heart,  which 
no  man,  except  himself,  has  clearly  fathomed. 
And  it  also  proves  his  own  exceeding  wicked- 
ness, when,  afterwards,  to  gratify  his  brutish 
lusts,  he  appropriated  to  his  own  selfish  pleas- 
ures a  thousand  such  hearts,  that  he  knew  were 
only  capable  of  goodness  and  happiness  in  the 
chaste  love  and  tenderness  which  the  sacred 
relations  of  home  —  not  the  harem  —  affiDrd  to 
woman's  affections. 

But  these  sins  had  not  darkened  his  life  whea 
he  undertook  his  great  work. 

The  Temple  of  Solomon  !  —  Many  writers 
have  sought  to  describe  it  according  to  the 
ideas  which  the  Bible  and  Jewish  history  afford. 
Yet  probably  no  man  who  saw  it  not,  could  or 
can  conceive  the  grandeur  and  glory  of  this 
wonderful  structure.  Only  by  the  means  ex- 
pended on,  and  the  time  given  to  this  great 
work,  can  we  approximate  to  a  notion  of  its 
magnificence. 

The  time  of  building  was  seven  years.  The 
number  of  men  emj^loyed  could  not  have  been 
less  than  200,000.   There  were  "  three-score  and 


154 


SOLOMON. 


ten  thousand  that  bore  burdens ;  and  four-score 
thousand  hewers  in  the  mountains."  Then 
there  were  "  thirty  thousand  a  levy  out  of  all 
Israel,"  and  thi^ee  thousand  three  hundred  of- 
ficers. Making  in  all  183,300.  To  these  must 
be  added  all  the  architects  and  artisans  who 
wrought  in  Jerusalem  —  all  the  men  employed 
by  Hiram  King  of  Tyre  in  the  sea-service  of 
Solomon ;  and  the  whole  number  could  not  have 
been  less  than  200,000  men.  These  labored 
seven  years. 

We  should  get  a  more  definite  idea  of  this 
vast  industrial,  or  rather  architectural  enter- 
j)rise,  if  we  lengthen  the  time  and  reduce  the 
number  of  workmen.  Supposing  but  25,000 
men  had  been  employed,  the  time  required  would 
have  been  fifty-six  years. 

Had  that  number  —  twenty  -  five  thousand  — 
American  men  begun  to  build  a  similar  Temple 
at  the  close  of  our  last  Avau  with  Great  Britain, 
in  1814,  they  would  only  now,  in  1870,  have 
completed  it. 

Then  for  the  means ;  all  the  stores  and  riches 
laid  up  by  King  David,  during  his  forty  years' 
reign  ;  all  the  revenues  of  Solomon,  and  all  he 
could  obtain  from  the  King  of  Tyre,  master  of 


SOLOMON. 


155 


the  richest  nation  the  earth  then  contained. 
These  means  were  not  enough,  and  "  King  Solo- 
mon gave  Hiram  twenty  cities  in  the  land  of 
Galilee." 

Truly  the  work  was  great.  It  was  completed. 
The  elders  and  all  the  men  of  Israel  assembled. 
Before  and  above  them  rose  the  awful  temple, 
its  golden  roof  swelling  upward  toward  the 
blue  of  heaven,  as  though  it  rivaled  the  sun  in 
its  glory. 

Most  reverently  was  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant 
of  the  Lord  brought  into  the  Holy  place  under 
wings  of  the  Cherubim. 

"And  it  came  to  pass,  when  the  priests  were 
come  out  of  the  holy  place,  that  the  glory  of 
the  Lord  filled  the  house  of  the  Lord." 

Try,  if  you  can,  to  form  a  conception  of  that 
wonderful  scene,  when  the  Most  High  had 
come  to  dwell  in  a  temple  made  with  hands, 
and  when  His  presence  was  felt  in  "  the  thick 
darkness,"  and  Solomon  said : 

"  I  have  surely  built  Thee  an  house  to  dwell 
in,  a  settled  place  for  Thee  to  abide  in  forever." 

Who  would  have  thought,  hearing  Solomon's 
devout  prayer,  as  he  knelt  before  the  altar, 
"  and  spread  forth  his  hands  toward  heaven," 


156 


SOLOMON. 


while  thousands,  and  hundreds  of  thousands, 
"all  the  congregation  of  Israel"  stood  before 
him  —  who  would  have  anticipated  that  that 
moment  was  the  culminating  point  of  the  na- 
tion's glory ! 

Who  could  have  foreseen  that  when  the  four- 
teen days  of  Solomon's  feasting  were  ended,  and 
he  sent  the  people  away  joyful,  blessing  the 
King,"  —  that,  in  less  than  thirty  years,  his 
sins  would  have  broken  the  Union  of  the 
Tribes,  destroyed  the  Nationality  of  Israel,  and 
polluted  that  Holy  Temj3le  of  God  with  idol 
worship  ? 

He  did  do  all  this,  and  all  was  the  result  of 
his  polygamy  and  licentiousness. 

The  record  of  his  fearful  fall  and  doom  is 
given  in  the  concise,  graphic  style  that  marks 
Divine  history.  The  sin ;  the  evil  effect ;  the 
sentence  of  condemnation,  are  all  contained  in 
one  chapter.  (See  1  Kings  xi.  7.) 

"  King  Solomon  loved  many  strange  women, 
together  with  the  daughter  of  Pharaoh. 

"  He  had  seven  hundred  wives,  princesses, 
and  three  hundred  concubines :  and  his  wives 
turned  away  his  heart  from  serving  the  Lord." 


SOLOMON. 


157 


He  liacl  "  multiplied  wives "  from  all  the  liea- 
tlien  nations,  which  Moses  in  the  special  laws, 
had  strictly  forbidden. 

God  had  said  in  the  Moral  Law,  "  Thou  shalt 
not  commit  adultery." 

Solomon  had  broken  these  laws ;  sin  always 
thrives  by  sin.  He  was  led  by  polygamy  into 
idolatry,  that  unpardonable  sin  of  the  Jews,  and 
destruction  followed. 

I  recollect  reading,  though  I  do  not  remem- 
ber the  author,  some  remarks  on  Solomon's 
idolatry,  where  the  whole  blame  was  thrown  on 
his  wives  (or  women),  because  the  Bible  said 
"  they  led  him"  into  it. 

The  fallacy  of  this  argument  may  be  easily 
shown.  Solomon  had  the  power,  he  had  the 
truth,  he  had  the  promise.  His  wives  kept 
their  faith  in  their  false  gods.  Is  he  to  be  ex- 
cused because  he  had  less  firmness  in  the  true 
faith  ?  He  must  have  been  very  easy  to  lead,  as 
he  was  led  in  so  many  wrong  ways. 

In  the  very  face,  as  it  were,  of  that  Holy 
Temple  of  the  Lord  which  Solomon  had  built 
with  such  cost  and  dedicated  with  such  jDomp, 
he,  the  Wise  King  of  Israel,  set  up  altars  to 

14 


158 


SOLOMON. 


Molecli,  to  Ashtoreth,  and  to  the  other  idols  of 
"  all  his  strange  wives." 

No  argument,  however,  is  needed  to  settle  the 
question  of  the  guilty  party.  The  Judge  of  all 
the  earth  never  censured  the  miserable  wives. 
It  was  the  royal  sinner  who  was  arraigned  and 
found  guilty. 

When  we  read  of  the  greatness  and  power 
of  Solomon ;  that  he  "  exceeded  all  the  kings  of 
the  earth  for  riches  and  for  wisdom ; "  that  "  all 
his  drinking- vessels  were  of  gold,  and  all  the 
vessels  of  the  house  of  the  forest  of  Lebanon 
were  of  pure  gold  ; "  that  he  "  built  cities  in  all  the 
land  of  his  dominions ; "  that  he  "  gathered  to- 
gether chariots  and  horsemen,  and  made  silver 
to  be  in  Jerusalem  as  stones" — we  cannot  but 
feel  admiration  as  well  as  astonishment  for  his 
wonderful  magnificence  and  honor.  We  are  loth 
to  believe  that,  by  his  own  wicked  folly,  all  this 
glory  was  dimmed  and  lost. 

It  would  seem  impossible  to  believe  that  in  so 
short  a  time  as  twenty-five  or  thirty  years,  such 
entire  rottenness  could  have  corrupted  the  na- 
tional religion ;  such  deep  discord  have  been 
excited  in  the  national  feelings;  such  rank 
seeds  of  ruin  sown  throughout  the  national 


SOLOMON. 


159 


prosperity ;  if  we  do  not  take  into  account  the 
wasting  as  well  as  corrupting  nature  of  the  sin 
of  polygamy. 

Solomon,  as  we  have  seen,  indulged  his. taste 
in  this  way  of  life  on  the  grandest  scale.  He 
was  "  Solomon  the  magnificent,"  in  guilt  as  well 
as  in  glory.  To  support  his  thousand  women 
in  the  style  described  of  his  household,  would 
have  exhausted  all  the  gold  of  California.  He 
had  Ophir,  but  it  did  not  suffice  for  his  extrava- 
gances, and  he  had  burdened  Israel  with  heavy 
taxations. 

He  had  centralized  the  government,  that  he 
might  draw  the  power  and  the  wealth  to  Jeru- 
salem, and  thus  gratify  his  pride  and  lust. 

There  is  no  record  in  the  world's  history  so 
humbling  to  man's  wisdom  and  ambition  as 
this  downfall  of  Solomon.  Convicted  as  he  was 
of  the  blackest  and  basest  crimes  a  king  and  a 
man  can  commit,  disobeying  God  and  dishon- 
oring woman,  the  Lord  by  the  mouth  of  His 
prophet  denounced  the  guilt  of  Solomon,  and 
thus  sealed  his  doom. 

"  I  will  surely  rend  the  kingdom  from  thee, 
and  will  give  it  to  thy  servant,"  said  the  Lord. 

Solomon  was   only  permitted  to  hold  the 


160 


SOLOMON. 


throne  upon  sufferance  to  tlie  end  of  his  life, 
because  of  his  father  David.  In  the  same  re- 
gard to  David,  and  "  for  Jerusalem's  sake,"  the 
Lord  allowed  one  tribe  (Benjamin)  beside  Ju- 
dah  to  Solomon's  son. 

Solomon  had  forfeited  all. 

To  gain  a  clear  idea  of  the  enormity  of  his 
wickedness,  we  must  consider  what  he  lost,  and 
what  evils  he  inflicted  upon  others. 

He  impoverished  and  corrupted  the  people 
of  Israel :  they  never  recovered  from  the  bad 
effects  of  Solomon's  reign. 

He  destroyed  the  union  of  the  Tribes ;  a  union 
which  had  subsisted  from  the  going  down  into 
Egypt,  or  for  more  than  eight  hundred  years. 

He  murdered  peace ;  the  blessing  so  peculiarly 
bestowed  on  his  reign.  From  his  vices  and  sins 
it  so  resulted  that  the  Jewish  nation  was  divided, 
and  those  fierce  wars  between  the  brother  tribes 
commenced,  that  made,  in  their  progress,  the 
whole  land  from  Dan  to  Beersheba  one  field 
of  blood ;  causing  Judea  and  Israel  to  become 
the  prey  of  surrounding  heathen  nations,  till 
enmities  and  wars,  domestic  and  foreign,  were 
stimulated,  that  never  ended  till  both  kingdoms 
of  the  Hebrew  people  were  broken  up,  as  by  the 


SOLOMON. 


161 


whirlwind  of  God's  wratli,  and  all  the  Tribes 
of  Israel  swept  into  captivity. 

He  established  idolatry  —  erecting  near  Jeru- 
salem the  first  altar  to  idol-worship.  Solomon 
thus  by  his  authority  corrupted  the  national 
faith,  and  polluted  the  Temple  of  the  Lord  God, 
which  was  never  more  made  clear  from  these 
abominations,  till  it  was  swept  with  the  besom 
of  fire  that  consumed  it,  and  all  the  work,  and 
the  wealth  Solomon  had  devoted  to  its  glory. 

And  he  himself,  Solomon  the  Wise,  the  Mag- 
nificent— What  of  him?  What  punishments 
came  on  him  ? 

He  lost  the  hingdom  of  all  Israel. 

He  lost  the  promise  of  long  life. 

He  lost  the  favor  of  God. 

He  lost  his  own  soul. 

Is  there  any  reason  for  hope,  when  Solomon 
never  repented,  never  prayed,  never  was  for- 
given, as  David  rej^ented,  prayed,  and  was  for- 
given ? 

Solomon  rebelled  against  God's  sentence  to 
the  last,  and  sought  to  kill  Jeroboam,  and  thus 
prevent  the  execution  of  God's  justice.  There 
was  no  repentance. 

Aye,  this  man,  endowed  with  the  faculty, 

14* 


162 


SOLOMON. 


never  before  or  since  bestowed  on  mortal,  of 
discerning,  instinctively,  between  the  good  and 
tbe  bad,  wbo  if  he  did  the  good  held  God's 
promise  of  long  life  —  died  at  the  age  of  ffty- 
eight  years  ;  this  omnipotent  ruler,  -whose  word 
was  law,  died  without  power;  this  king,  pro- 
moted to  honor  by  the  King  of  kings,  died  in 
shame  and  disgrace ;  this  man  of  peace  died 
with  murder  in  his  heart,  warring  against  God ; 
this  chosen  of  the  Lord  died  an  outcast  from 
Heaven's  mercy ;  this  "  wisest  of  all  men  "  died 
"  as  the  fool  dieth  ! " 

The  fierce  judgments  of  God,  those  fearful 
calamities  which,  from  the  days  of  Solomon  to 
the  present  day,  have  fallen  on  the  Jewish  peo- 
ple, have  been  caused  by  the  sins  whose  root  is 
disobedience  to  God's  commands,  and  whose  two 
deadliest  branches  are  idolatry  and  polygamy 
or  adultery. 

And  this  root,  though  Solomon  did  not 
plant,  he  cherished ;  these  two  branches  he 
developed  to  their  rankest  growth  and  deadliest 
poison. 

Nor  has  this  poison  from  Solomon's  sins  been 
confined  ^0  his  own  people. 

All  the  kings  and  governments  of  the  earth 


SOLOMOK. 


163 


have  been  made  worse  since  his  time,  by  his 
example. 

His  wisdom  and  honor  seem  to  have  sanctified, 
so  to  speak,  his  shame  and  foolislmess.  Licen- 
tiousness has  been  considered  the  privilege  of 
kings.  Their  sins  are  not  openly  rebuked,  even 
by  the  preachers  of  righteousness — never  ques- 
tioned by  legislators,  and  hardly  blamed  by 
the  gravest  writers  on  philosophy,  morals,  or 
religion. 

Solomon's  sin  of  licentiousness  has,  with  ac- 
quiescence, if  not  encouragement,  come  to  be 
considered  the  man's  privilege.  Instead  of 
shame  it  gives  a  sort  of  celebrity  which  many 
mistake  for  glory,  to  be  called  "  men  of  pleas- 
ure." Many  a  youth,  like  the  "simple"  one 
Solomon  so  graphically  described,  has  been,  by 
his  example,  led  into  those  haunts  of  sin  that 
"  go  down  to  the  chambers  of  death." 

The  sins  of  David  darken  and  corrupt  the 
Church. 

The  sins  of  Solomon  have  corrupted  all  men. 

W e  can  see  the  devilish  nature  of  these  sins 
when  acted  out,  unmasked,  as  in  Utah. 

What  is  their  influence  when  covered  with 
the  thin  veil  of  respectability,  or  the  darker 


164 


SOLOMON. 


mantle  of  liypocrisy,  as  in  the  large  cities  of  our 
land,  and  in  the  old  world  ? 

Are  we  blind  to  the  results  that  must  follow, 
if  this  open  sepulchre  of  Utah  is  not  purified  or 
closed  ? 

If  the  assertions  and  deductions  advanced  by 
theologians  and  commentators  upon*  the  Bible 
be  sustained  —  then  Utah  is  safe  as  she  is. 

"  Abraham  had  a  concubine ! "  says  one  of 
these. 

"  Jacob  had  two  wives !  "  softly  whispers  an- 
other. 

"  And  David  had  twenty  wives  ! "  musingly 
responds  the  third. 

"  And  Solomon  had  seven  hundred  wives  and 
three  hundred  concubines  !  "  shouts  a  fourth. 

And  so,  blind  leaders  of  the  blind  bring  it 
about  that  the  sins  of  those  eminent  men, 
polygamy  and  licentiousness,were  not  sins  under 
the  laws  of  the  Jewish  Church. 

Is  it  possible  that  the  reverend  clergy  of  the 
American  Churches,  the  enlightened  and  faith- 
ful men  who  seek  to  guide  the  people  in  the  way 
of  righteousness,  have  rightly  read  the  judg- 
ments of  God  against  licentiousness  and  po- 
lygamy. 


SOLOMON. 


165 


If  so,  then  all  the  world  may  become  Mor- 
monized  without  sin. 

I  call  upon  all  people  who  love  the  Bible  and 
believe  God  is  righteous  to  examine  this  question. 

Read  the  Bible  for  yourselves,  and  see  if  I 
have  not,  in  these  pages,  gone  carefully  through 
the  evidence,  from  the  Creation  to  the  close  of 
Solomon's  reign,  a  period  of  more  than  three 
thousand  years.  Is  there  a  shadow  of  authority 
for  this  assertion  that  God  sanctioned,  allowed, 
or  tolerated  polygamy  ? 

Not  a  law  or  a  permission  can  be  found. 

There  are  four  eminent  cases  recorded  of  the 
violation  of  God's  primal  law;  three  of  these 
men,  Abraham,  Jacob,  and  David,  were  servants 
of  God,  and  the  Bible  that  sets  forth  their  guilt 
records  their  punishments. 

Solomon's  doom  we  have  now  before  us. 
Does  it  show  that  God  "  tolerated  "  his  polyg- 
amy ? 

Every  nation  and  people,  guilty  of  the  sins 
that  result  from  the  violation  of  the  primal  law 
of  marriage,  were  punished  and  destroyed  — 
from  the  contemporaries  of  Noah  down  to  the 
Canaanites,  the  people  swept  away  to  make  room 
for  Israel. 


166 


SOLOMON. 


And  the  Hebrew  nation  —  from  wliat  sin  came 
its  repeated  backslidings  from  the  Lord?  Came 
they  not  from  this  prolific  source  of  evils  and 
crimes  ? 

Ponder  well  these  things,  and  then,  if  you 
dare,  accuse  God  of  the  unrighteousness  of 
sanctioning  or  tolerating  a  practice  that  tends 
always  and  only  to  evil  —  that  breaks  the  first 
law  for  created  human  beings,  and  thus  intro- 
duces the  sins  that  never  escape  the  just  judg- 
ments of  Divine  Power. 

And  now  let  us  together  read  Solomon's  con- 
fession of  his  own  guilt,  in  the  testimony  he 
bears  to  the  righteousness  of  God's  laws. 


CHAPTER  XL 


THE  BOOKS  OF  SOLOMON. 

IN  deciding  on  the  guilt  of  transgressing  tHe 
Moral  Law,  next  to  the  punishments  in- 
flicted by  the  infallible  and  just  Judge  of  all 
the  earth,  is  the  confession  of  the  transgressor. 

We  have  considered  the  direful  punishments 
God  inflicted  on  Solomon  ;  now  we  will  examine 
the  testimony  of  his  guilt,  written  by  his  own 
hand. 

When  comparing  the  writings  of  Solomon 
with  those  of  David  his  father,  we  are  made, 
unmistakably,  aware  of  the  worldly-wise  or 
practical  philosophy  of  the  former  compared  with 
the  heavenly  aspirations,  the  zeal,  and  love  toward 
God  which  pervade  the  effusions  of  the  latter. 

Solomon's  wisdom  is  for  the  understanding ; 
guiding  men  safely  through  thi&  life  his  highest 
aim. 

"  To  give  subtilty  to  the  simjole,  to  the  young 
man  knowledge  and  discretion."  {Prov.  i.  4.) 

167 


168 


PEOVEEBS  or  SOLOMON. 


David's  faitli  and  love  are  for  the  soul,  uplift- 
ing it  as  on  tlie  wings  of  Divine  Hope  to  a 
heavenly  inheritance. 

"Thou,  O  Lord,  art  a  shield  for  me;  my 
glory,  and  the  lifter  up  of  mine  head."  {Ps.  iii.  3.) 

Yes,  a  shield  indeed ;  better  a  thousand  times, 
even  for  this  life,  than  all  the  subtilty  of  Solo- 
mon.; aye,  more  blessed  than  all  the  knowledge 
and  discretion  set  forth  in  all  the  Proverbs,  is 
the  simple,  loving  "  trust  in  the  Lord,"  which 
David  enforces. 

The  sentiment  in  the  Book  of  Proverbs  rarely 
rises  above  the  "  fear  of  the  Lord."  It  is  the 
punishment  that  overtakes  the  transgressor 
which  is  described  and  warned  against,  not  the 
sin  of  transgression. 

The  exceptions  to  this  are  in  the  first  three 
chapters,  where  God  the  Holy  Spirit  is  personi- 
fied as  "Wisdom."  Even  there  the  worldly 
advantages  of  piety  have  the  prominent  place. 
The  love  of  wisdom  is  to  lead  to  honor,  and 
riches,  and  long  life.  In  short,  it  is  the  wisdom 
of  this  world,  but  perfect  of  its  kind,  that  we 
learn  from  the  teachings  of  Solomon. 

In  addressing  the  understanding,  and  enfor- 
cing the  true  economy  of  life,  there  was  never  a 


PROVERBS  OF  SOLOMON. 


1G9 


writer  like  him.  His  mind  was  as  transparent 
and  true  as  a  convex  lens.  He  saw  through  all 
the  shams.  He  could  unmask  the  deceptions 
of  the  imagination,  untwist  the  sophistries  of 
reason,  unbind  the  coils  of  selfishness,  and  even 
enlighten  the  blindness  of  afiection. 

He  did  all  these  and  more ;  he  made  the  way 
to  wealth,  honor,  reverence,  and  all  the  enjoy- 
ments of  this  life  as  "  plain  (to  use  Franklin's 
expressive  phrase),  as  the  way  to  market." 
There  are  no  axioms  of  political  wisdom,  no 
hints  for  business  men,  no  precepts  of  domestic 
conduct,  that  can  compare  with  the  Proverbs  of 
Solomon. 

He  did  more  than  this ;  there  is  a  vein  of  the 
best  and  purest  gold  of  philosophical  and  moral 
truth  running  through  these  Proverbs.  If  a 
young  man  would  "order  his  way"  of  life  as 
these  precepts  direct,  he  would  be  a  good  man 
in  the  sight  of  men.  He  would  do  good,  great 
good,  for  an  upright  examj^le  is  a  powerful  lever 
in  raising  the  tone  of  society.  He  would  go 
down  to  the  grave  in  great  honor,  and  his  mem- 
ory would,  deservedly,  be  held  in  high  estima- 
tion. 

But  would  he  be  a  righteous  man  in  the  sight 

J5 


170 


PEOVERBS   OF  SOLOMON. 


of  the  holy  God?  AVould  he  love  God  su- 
premely ? 

Solomon  was  Divinely  inspired  to  reveal  to 
men  the  worldly  advantages  of  morality  and 
goodness.  He  has  set  these  before  them  in  such 
a  clear  light  as  no  rational  mind  can  mistake 
or  misconstrue.  We  see  and  feel  that  truth, 
purity,  honesty,  sobriety,  and  mercy,  or  charity, 
are  required  for  the  best  interests  of  an  individ- 
ual as  well  as  for  the  community. 

But  did  Solomon  love  these  virtues  that  he 
praised  ?    Did  he  practice  them  ? 

Like  Balaam,  he  was  compelled,  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  to  communicate  truth,  whether  it  pleased 
him  or  not.* 

*  Is  it  not  strange  that  in  texts  from  Proverbs,  where  right- 
eousness and  wickedness  are  contrasted,  those  who  preach  God's 
^yord  rarely,  or  never,  allude  to  the  discrepancies  between  the 
divine  philosophy  of  Solomon  and  his  own  life  and  examples? 

He  teaches  always  that  blessings  attend  on  virtue,  and  that 
misery  overtakes  vice:  how  could  this  sound  religious  doctriuc 
be  better  illustrated  than  by  setting  before  the  world  the  true 
picture  of  his  own  life  and  death? 

Let  us  examine  a  few  of  these  texts. 

"  Wisdom  is  b'>tter  than  weapons  of  war :  but  one  sinner 
destroycth  much  good."  {Eccl.  ix.18.) 

Was  there  ever  a  sinner  of  mortal  mould  who  destroyed  so 
much  good  as  did  Solomon  ? 

"It  is  an  abomination  to  kings  to  commit  wickedness :  for 
the  throne  is  established  by  righteousness."  (Prov.  xvi.  12.) 

Did  he  not  by  his  own  wickedness,  forfeit  his  throne  and 
destroy  his  kingdom  ? 

"  The  fear  of  the  Lord  prolongeth  davs ;  but  the  years  of  the 
wicked  shall  be  shortened."  {Prov.  x.  27.) 


PROVERBS  OF  SOLOMON. 


171 


Herein  we  see  the  truth  and  the  love  of  God. 
The  bad  actions  of  good  men,  and  the  good 
actions  of  bad  men,  are  alike  set  forth  in  the 
Bible.  Neither  of  these  courses  of  action  could 
have  been,  with  truth,  suppressed.  But  see  how 
Divine  mercy  instructs  all  who  would  learn  the 
right  way,  the  difference  between  the  good  and 
the  bad.  Never  is  the  bad  action  of  a  good  man 
unrebuked  or  unpunished.  Never  is  the  false 
idea  put  forth  as  true,  nor  the  sinful  deed  advo- 
cated by  Divine  inspiration.  While  the  peni- 
tent sinner  may  hope,  because  great  sins  of  pious 
men  who  repented  were  forgiven,  the  presump- 
tuous sinner  cannot  find  in  the  whole  range  of 
Bible  history  and  ethics,  a  single  allowance,  by 
Divine  authority,  for  the  transgressions  of  the 
Primal  Law,  or  of  the  Moral  Law. 

Did  he  not, -by  his  wickedness,  shorten  his  own  years  from  the 
"long  life"  God  had  promised  him,  if  he  did  well,  to  a  mere 
span?  He  died  before  he  had  reached  the  age  at  which  man's 
best  faculties  are  ripened,  his  character  matured,  and  his  high- 
est attainments  won. 

The  above  Proverbs,  and  scores  of  others,  might  be  cited  to 
show  how  Solomon  was  compelled  by  the  Spirit  of  all  truth 
to  pass  judgment  upon  himself.  His  wisdom  was  trumpet- 
tongued  in  proclaiming  his  own  shame  and  doom,  yet  these 
warnings  have  never  been  thus  presented  to  awaken  sinners  or 
to  encourage  the  righteous. 

It  is  not  surprising  that  these  truths  have  been  suppressed  in 
the  Old  World  Churches,  because  there  the  ethics  of  royalty 
subverting  the  Moral  Law,  teach  that  kings  can  do  no  wrong; 
but  why  should  our  American  Protestant  ministers  be  thus 
blinded? 


172 


PEOVERBS  OF  SOLOMON. 


Solomon  had  seven  hundred  wives  !  If  po- 
lygamy had  been  sanctioned,  "  encouraged,"  or 
even  "  tolerated,"  by  God's  law  of  marriage, 
would  not  sucli  a  wise  philosopher  as  was  this 
inspired  king  have  commended  his  own  example 
to  his  son,  or  at  least  have  justified  his  own  way 
of  married  life? 

He  had  three  hundred  concubines :  has  he 
commended  concubinage  ? 

He  has  done  nothing  of  the  sort.  His  writ- 
ings are  as  strictly  in  support  of  continence 
and  chastity  as  are  those  of  St.  Paul.  Not  a 
licentious  word,  not  an  impure  idea  can  be  found 
in  the  Proverbs.  The  only  system  of  marriage 
alluded  to,  is  strictly  monogamy. —  Read  chap, 
v.,  from  verse  15  to  the  end. 

"  Rejoice  with  the  wife  of  thy  youth." 

**  Be  thou  ravished  always  with  her  love." 

"Let  her  be  as  the  loving  hind  and  pleas- 
ant roe." 

In  this  same  connection  he  thus  admonishes 
his  son  : 

"  Why  wilt  thou  be  ravished  with  a  strange 
woman  and  embrace  the  bosom  of  a  stranger  ?  " 

In  a  number  of  chapters  the  same  vein  of 
warning  recurs,  and  never  is  license  given  to  the 


PROVERBS  OF  SOLOMON. 


173 


passions  through  a  phirality  of  wives  or  concu- 
bines. When  alluding  to  the  wife  it  is  always 
in  the  singular  number. 

"  A  virtuous  woman  is  a  crown  to  her  husband." 

"Whoso  findeth  a  wife  fiudeth  a  good,  and 
obtaineth  favor  of  the  Lord."  —  Prov.  xviii.  22. 

If  Solomon  had  believed  polygamy  to  be  the 
right  way  of  marriage,  or  even  the  "  tolerated  " 
way,  would  he  not  have  boasted  of  his  seven 
hundred  crowns  ? 

How  wonderful  the  amount  of  "  good  "  be- 
stowed on  this  lascivious  king  if  all  his  wives 
brought  this  dowry !  and  how  amazing  the 
"  favor  of  the  Lord  "  to  him,  if  the  seven  hun- 
dred women  he  had  married,  were,  by  the  law 
of  God,  Solomon's  wives  I 

Is  it  not  unaccountable  that  this  king  was  led 
into  the  dreadful  sin  of  idolatry  by  his  wives, 
if  they  had  come  to  him  through  the  "  favor  of 
the  Lord?" 

That  such  dark  pollutions  and  terrible  pun- 
ishments should  be  the  result  of  his  adulterous- 
monopoly  of  women  is  not  surprising,  when  we 
consider  the  laws  he  had  violated. 

He  had  monopolized  a  thousand  women  as 
his  companions.    Nine  hundred  and  ninety-nine 

15* 


174 


PROVERBS   OF  SOLOMOJT. 


men  in  the  world  were,  then,  deprived  of  their 
just  rights,  each  one  having  the  right  by  mar- 
riage to  the  companionship  of  one  woman. 

What  disturbance,  license,  sin,  wretchedness, 
and  waste  of  the  means  of  improvement  and 
haj)piness  such  a  state  of  society  would,  of 
necessity,  bring  about,  will  be  apparent  to  every 
reasonable  man.  Such  general  moral  and  mate- 
rial waste,  as  well  as  wickedness,  must  have  been 
the  condition  of  the  Jews  in  the  latter  part  of 
Solomon's  reign. 

Through  his  example,  sin  had  abounded,  and 
destruction  followed. 

Yet  Solomon  knew  the  right  way.  His  pic- 
ture of  the  "  virtuous  woman  "  proves  this.  And 
out  of  his  own  mouth  comes  his  condemnation, 
because  his  delineation  of  bad  women,  the  incal- 
culable evils  of  degrading  the  sex,  making  them 
the  slaves  of  man's  lust,  are  most  truly  ex- 
hibited. When  the  holiest  hopes  of  woman  are 
forbidden,  and  her  sweetest  affections  crushed 
•out  by  the  licentiousness  of  her  oppressors,  she 
becomes  the  devil's  agent  of  temptation  to  man, 
and  "  her  house  is  the  way  to  hell." 

That  Solomon's  own  brutal  lusts,  and  not 
God's  "  toleration,"  or  "  encouragement "  of 


ECCLESI  ASTES. 


175 


his  sin,  liad  been  the  cause  of  filling  his  harem, 
is  apparent  in  all  his  precepts  commending  mar- 
riage and  virtue.  But  the  most  crushing  proof 
of  his  miserable  selfishness  and  guilt  in  the 
degradation  of  the  sex,  is  shown  in  his  praises 
of  a  "  virtuous  woman."  —  Chap.  xxxi. 

No  seraglio,  no  home  of  "  two  or  three  wives" 
could  have  furnished  the  original  of  this  "  good 
wife."  She  must  have  been  the  "  one  wife; "  the 
"  only,"  the  beloved  and  honored  of  her  hus- 
band, with  no  rival  in  his  affections  nor  in  his 
imagination. 

Read  the  last  chapter  of  Proverbs,  from  the 
tenth  verse  to  the  end,  and  say  if  such  a  femi- 
nine character  is  compatible  with  any  system  of 
marriage  except  strict  monogamy. 


"  EccLESiASTES ;  OR,  THE  Peeachee,"  pkccd 
as  the  Second  Book  of  Solomon,  was  without 
doubt  his  last,  as  it  begins  by  summing  up  the 
results,  of  his  exi:)erience  of  a  life  of  grandeur, 
success,  glory,  and  voluptuousness,  which  no 
other  man  in  like  measure  and  perfectness  ever 
enjoyed. 


176 


ECCLESIASTES. 


"What  is  tlie  result  of  his  experience  ? 

"  Vanity  of  vanities,  saith  the  Preacher,  van- 
ity of  vanities ;  all  is  vanity." 

The  bitterest  sarcasms  of  the  misanthropist, 
who  had  all  his  days  dwelt  in  disappointment, 
darkness  and  despair,  could  not  have  represented 
the  lot  of  man  under  a  more  hopeless  aspect. 

It  is  the  Avail  of  a  lost  life ;  not  the  sorrowful 
confession  of  a  penitent  sinner  who  has  misused 
the  opportunities  afforded  him. 

If  any  proof,  in  addition  to  the  history  of  Solo- 
mon, as  recorded  in  1  Kings,  xi.,  were  needed  to 
show  his  hardness  of  heart  and  imjienitence  to  the 
last,  this  'preachment  of  his,  taken  throughout  its 
revelations,  suggestions,  and  admissions,  would 
make  his  own  ruin  of  soul  clearly  visible. 

He  begins  by  denouncing  and  despising  all 
the  advantages  and  good  gifts  of  this  life,  —  be- 
cause his  selfish  desecration  of  these  have  made 
the  portion  —  the  king's  portion  assigned  to 
him,  a  curse  and  not  a  blessing. 

Yet  he  still  teaches  men  no  higher  aim  than 
the  pursuit  of  these  material  things.  He 
knows  — 

"  Nothing  better  for  a  man,  than  that  he 
should  eat  and  drink,  and  that  he  should  make 


ECCLESIASTES. 


177 


his  soul  enjoy  good  in  liis  labour." — Eccl.  ii. 
24. 

He  analyzes  the  nature  of  the  sons  of  men, 
and  finds  they  are  like  the  "  beasts."  "  So  that 
a  man  hath  no  pre-eminence  above  a  beast." 
(One  male  beast  never  had  a  thousand  of  the 
females  of  his  species  at  his  pleasure :  was  not 
that  a  pre-eminence  ?)  Solomon  evidently  did 
not  believe  that  God  breathed  the  breath  of  life 
into  man  so  that  he  "  became  a  living  (or  im- 
mortal) soul." 

The  conclusion  of  his  material  philosophy 
would  suit  the  most  rabid  materialist  of  the 
Hume  and  Hobbes  school  of  infidelity.  Solo- 
mon says : 

"All  go  unto  one  place:  (beasts  and  men)  all 
are  of  the  dust,  and  all  turn  to  dust  again. 

"  Who  knoweth  the  spirit  of  man  that  goetli 
upward,  and  the  spiiit  of  the  beast  that  goeth 
downward  to  the  earth?"  —  Eccl.  iii.  18,  and 
on. 

That  is,  as  no  man  could  tell  about  these 
things,  there  was  no  good  in  such  speculations ; 
as  for  faith  in  God,  he  knew  it  not ;  as  for  hope 
in  immortality,  it  brought  him  no  happiness. 
He  never  alluded  to  it,  till  near  the  close  of  his 


178 


ECCLESIASTES. 


teachings,  and  tlien  as  a  truth  for  others,  not  as 
an  aspiration  for  himself 

To  feel  the  full  imj^ort  of  Solomon's  tardy 
and  apparently  forced  acknowledgment  of  a 
judgment  to  come,  and  of  the  "return  of  the 
spirit  to  God  who  gave  it,'''  we  must  contrast  his 
cold  admissions  of  God's  providence,  jDOwer,  and 
goodness,  with  his  father  David's  love,  and  faith, 
and  piety. 

"My  soul  thirsteth  for  God,  for  the  living 
God ;  when  shall  I  come  and  appear  before 
God?''— Fsalm  xxii.  2. 

"  God  will  redeem  my  soul  from  the  power  of 
the  grave ;  for  He  shall  receive  me."  —  Psalm 
xlix.  15. 

"  Happy  is  that  people,  w^hose  God  is  the 
Lord."   Psalm  cxliv.  15.   So  sings  David. 

Still,  however,  Solomon  might  have  hardened 
his  heart  in  guilt,  and  sought  to  justify  his  own 
course  of  life  by  the  sensuous  standard  of  Epi- 
curean philosophy,  which  no  man  could  have 
better  understood,  yet  he  was  compelled,  by  the 
Spirit  of  Divine  Inspiration,  to  give  evidence 
against  himself,  and  against  the  philosophy  of 
chance  which  he  would  fain  have  taught. 

Solomon  advised  the  young  man  to  live  in 


ECCLESI ASTES. 


179 


all  the  indulgences  of  sense  that  he  desired;  yet 
the  terrible  retribution  for  these  sins  was  de- 
clared. 

"  Know  thou,  that  for  all  these  things  God 
will  bring  thee  into  judgment."  —  Eccl.  xi.  9. 

Did  not  Solomon  know  that  he  had  sinned, 
and  that  God  would  bring  hira  into  judgment? 

Is  there  a  word  of  penitence ;  of  supplication ; 
of  love  ;  of  faith,  in  these  his  latest  confessions  ? 
Not  one.  But  -  there  is  an  assertion  of  the 
"  many  proverbs "  he  had  set  in  order,  and  a 
declaration  that  "  the  words  written  in  the 
Proverbs  were  upright  words  of  truth." 

In  these  Proverbs  he  has,  whenever  he  has 
alluded  to  the  union  of  the  sexes,  invariably 
maintained  strict  monogamy,  and  upheld  the 
purest  continence  and  virtue. 

The  recognitions  of  God,  of  His  providence, 
justice,  and  judgment  against  all  evil  doers  and 
evil  doings  are  intrinsic  proofs  that  "  Ecclesi- 
astes  "  is  an  inspired  Book ;  for  only  by  such 
power  of  the  Spirit  of  Truth  would  the  Wise 
Solomon,  the  Great  King  of  Israel,  have  thus 
been  brought  to  give  evidence  against  the  sins 
of  which  he  was  the  living  embodiment. 

In  Ecclesiastes,  as  in  his  other  Books,  he  gives 


180 


ECCLESIASTES. 


his  testimony  in  favor  of  the  one-wife  system, 
and  against  licentiousness. 

"  Live  joyfully  with  the  wife  whom  thou 
lovest  all  the  days  of  the  life  of  thy  vanity,  which 
He  (God)  hath  given  thee  under  the  sun,  all  the 
days  of  thy  vanity."  —  £ccl.  ix.  9. 

"  I  find  more  bitter  than  death  the  woman, 
whose  heart  is  snares  and  nets,  and  her  hands 
as  bands :  whoso  pleaseth  God  shall  escape 
from  her;  but  the  sinner  shall  be  taken  by  her." 
JEccl.  vii.  26. 

Was  not  Solomon  "  taken  by  her  "?  by  many 
strange  women — and  destroyed  by  his  own  sins  ? 

Now,  if  these  acknowledgments  of  the  holi- 
ness of  God's  laws,  and,  consequently,  admissions 
of  his  own  guilt  and  the  certainty  of  punish- 
ment, had  not  been  made,  the  philosophy  of 
Ecclesiastes  would  lead  to  the  same  conclusions 
as  the  teachings  of  the  materialists. 

JBut,  thanks  be  to  God,  the  falsities  and  par-' 
adoxes  of  heathen  philosophy,  which  Solomon 
strove  to  believe  and  to  set  forth,  are  shriveled 
like  green  flax  before  the  fire,  in  that  one  Divine 
Truth  of  the  infallibility  and  justice  of  God. 

"  It  shall  not  be  well  with  the  wicked."  — 
Ihcl.  viii.  13. 


Solomon's  song. 


181 


"  The  Song  of  Songs,  which  is  Solomou's," 
dififeis  entirely  from  his  other  writings. 

It  is  recorded  that  his  "  Songs  were  a  thousand 
and  five ; "  all  are  lost  save  this  one.  As  Divine 
Providence  has  so  ordered  that  this  Song  has 
been  preserved,  and  has  retained  its  place  in  the 
sacred  Books  of  the  Synagogue  and  in  the  ca- 
nonical Scriptures  of  the  Christian  Church,  we 
have  no  reason  to  doubt  its  inspiration. 

But  what  truth  does  it  teach  ? 

The  Song  is  in  the  dramatic  form,  the  inter- 
locutors are  a  new-married  couple  and  their 
two  friends. 

The  husband  and  wife  describe,  alternately, 
their  loves,  fears,  hopes,  and  the  joys  that  are  to 
crown  their  sacred  union. 

The  two  friends  break  in,  occasionally,  with  a 
few  words  of  congratulation  and  encouragement. 

Through  the  rose-color  of  Eastern  imagery 
and  the  passionate  love  of  these  young  hearts, 
the  expressions  are,  at  times,  warm  almost  to 
wantonness ;  yet  the  love  is  chaste  and  the  senti- 
ment virtuous. 

The  "  spouse,"  so  beloved  of  Solomon,  has  no 
rival  in  her  husband's  heart.  He  says :  "  My 
dove,  my  undefiled  is  but  one  j  she  is  the  only 

16 


182 


Solomon's  soxg. 


one  of  lier  mother."  —  So  lie  had  no  excuse  for 
doing  as  Jacob  did,  taking  two  sisters. 

The  "  Song  "  bears  intrinsic  evidence  of  hav- 
ing been  Solomon's  royal  welcome  to  his  Egyp- 
tian Bride.  He  was  then  about  twenty-one 
years  old  —  the  age  of  love  and  poesy;  the  very 
time  most  meet  for  the  composition  of  this 
*'  Schir  Haschinm  "  —  (in  Hebrew)  "  The  most 
excellent  of  all  Songs." 

He  had  had  a  wife  before  this,  as  Rehoboam, 
his  son  —  the  only  son  of  his  ever  alluded  to  — 
was  born  while  King  David  was  living.  The 
mother  of  Rehoboam  was  Naamah  an  Ammon- 
itess ;  but  she  is  never  mentioned  after  the  death 
of  David.  Therefore  we  may  infer  that  he  had 
no  wife  when  he  married  Pharaoh's  daughter. 
She  was  his  only  wife.  At  that  time  it  is  re- 
corded that  "  Solomon  loved  the  Lord  ;  "  it  was 
the  time  of  his  holiest  inspiration.  He  was  not 
a  polygamist.  But  if  the  Song  was  inspired, 
what  does  it  teach  ? 

This: — Conjugal  love  and  happiness  are  com- 
plete in  the  true  marriage ;  one  man  with  one 
woman  ;  and  such  union  is  the  Divine  Law. 

Theologians  and  commentators  have  set  aside 
this  idea  of  human  marriage,  and  refer  only  to 


Solomon's  song. 


183 


the  allegorical  or  spiritual  interpretation  of  the 
union  between  Christ  and  the  Church. 

Can  tliis  interpretation  be  sustained  ? 

My  readers  are  doubtless  aware  that  the  head- 
ings or  contents  of  each  chapter  in  the  Bible  are 
sheer  interpolations  of  uninspired  men ;  that 
the  division  of  the  Sacred  Books  into  chapter 
and  verse  was  the  work  of  monks  of  the  thir- 
teenth century. 

"  The  Song  of  Solomon  "  in  the  Hebrew  has 
iieither  chapter  nor  verse ;  it  is  a  continuous 
Poem  in  dramatic  form. 

About  six  or  seven  hundred  years  ago  an  old 
monk  divided  this  "  Song  "  into  eight  chapters, 
prefixing  headings  over  each,  explaining  that 
Christ  and  His  spouse,  the  Church,  are  the 
interlocutors. 

He  thus  sjjiritualizes  the  sentiment  to  suit  his 
own  ideas.  An  old  monk  who  held  human 
marriage,  or  carnal  marriage  as  he  would  term 
it,  unfit  for  a  man  who  ministers  at  God's  altar, 
would  not  be  likely  to  hold  the  description  of 
such  union  fit  for  the  Word  of  God. 

This  monk's  interpretation  is  now  found, 
pi'iuted,  over  every  chapter  of  the  Song,  in  every 
Bible  extant. 


184 


Solomon's  song. 


But  tliis  does  not  make  it  true  that  tlie  Song 
has,  or  was  intended  to  have,  such  spiritual  mean- 
ing. This  testimony  should  be  found  in  the  Song 
itself — in  the  writings  of  the  Prophets  and 
Apostles,  or  among  the  recorded  teachings  of 
Christ.    Does  any  such  testimony  exist  ? 

In  the  Song  itself,  there  is  not  the  slightest 
evidence  of  this  spirituality,  but  the  reverse. 
Neither  Heaven,  nor  God,  nor  the  Hedeemer 
are  alluded  to.  Take  away  the  headings  of  the 
old  monk,  and  no  person  reading  the  "  Song  of 
Solomon  "  would  dream  that  it  referred  to  Christ 
and  the  Church. 

There  is  then  no  intrinsic  evidence  of  this 
sj)iritual  meaning ;  nor  is  there  any  evidence  for 
it  in  the  other  Sacred  Books.  The  prophets  do 
not  refer  to  Solomon.  The  Apostles  never  men- 
tion his  name,  nor  did  Christ  our  Lord,  except 
to  throw  contempt  on  the  greatness  and  gran- 
deur of  this  Wise  King  of  Israel. 

The  flowers  of  the  field  are  more  glorious 
than  Solomon.  Jesus,  who  stood  before  his 
proud  Pharisaical  critics,  as  the  lowly  carpen- 
ter's sou,  the  poor,  despised  preacher  to  the  rab- 
ble of  Jerusalem,  declares  Himself  to  be  "  greater 
than  Solomon." 


Solomon's  song. 


185 


How  those  mocking  priests  and  scribes  must 
have  scorned  the  comparison  ! 

If  this  Song  of  Solomon  were  such  a  wonder- 
ful prophecy  of  Christ  aud  the  Church,  would 
not  He,  who  knew  all  truth  and  the  importance 
of  such  truth,  have  referred  to  this  testimony  of 
His  Divine  Mission  ? 

Would  the  meaning  of  this  sacred  allegory 
have  beeu  left  to  an  old  monk's  penetration  and 
solution  ? 

I  do  not  object  to  the  allegorical  aud  spiritual 
interpretation  of  this  Song,  because  it  would,  if 
established,  tend  to  spiritualize  Solomon.  If  he 
had  had  all  those  clear  revelations  of  the  Messiah 
and  His  offices,  which  the  old  monk  and  his 
followers  suppose,  and  all  the  burning  visions 
of  love  between  Christ  and  the  Church,  which 
they  have  set  down  to  his  credit,  still  these 
visions  could  not  prove  him  to  have  been  a  good 
man  in  the  face  of  the  records  against  him :  nor 
could  they  excuse  his  sins. 

Balaam  was  not  made  good  by  his  clear  vision 
of  the  "  Star  out  of  Jacob." 

But  it  does  make  a  difference  with  the  Bible, 
and  with  its  interpreters  the  clergy. 

Holding  up,  as  they  do,  the  Canticles,  as  the 

16* 


186 


Solomon's  song. 


most  wonderful  proplietic  description  of  Divine 
Love  for  the  Church  to  be  found  iu  tlie  Old 
Testament,  leads  the  clergy,  of  all  denomina- 
tions, to  look  leniently  on  Solomon's  sins.  They 
thus  shadow  the  purity  of  God's  Holy  "Word, 
and  lower  the  requirements  of  God's  Holy  Law. 

AVliile  representing  such  a  man,  steeped  to 
the  lips  in  sensuality,  as  being  intrusted  with 
the  deepest  and  divinest  mysteries  of  redeeming 
grace,  how  can  they  rebuke  the  sins  of  his  sen- 
suality ? 

If  a  King  with  seven  hundred  wives  and  three 
hundred  concubines  is  thus  favored,  surely  adul- 
tery, polygamy  and  concubinage  are  not  so  very 
bad,  morally,  —  not  surely  in  Solomon's  case. 
He  must  be  excused ;  and  all  kings  are  thus 
encouraged  in  sin.  And  if  the  "  wisest  of  men  " 
may  be  excused,  then  men  less  wise  are  left  free 
to  follow  their  own  lusts  —  for  none  can  be  any 
greater  sinners  than  was  Solomon. 

To  avoid  these  conclusions.  Christian  Theol- 
ogy has  altered  the  standard  and  lowered  the 
sanctity  of  the  jirimal  law  of  marriage  to  suit 
the  convenience  or  the  practice  of  some  of  the 
fathers  of  the  Old  Testament  Church.  And 
this  monkish  inter^jretation  of  Solomon's  Song 


Solomon's  song. 


187 


has  been  one  of  the  misleading  causes  producing 
this  moral  obliquity. 

But  if  we  consider  this  sublime  *'Song  of  Con- 
jugal Love,  to  set  forth  truly  the  happiness  of 
chaste  and  holy  marriage,  such  as  God  instituted 
in  Eden,  when  He  blessed  the  wedded  pair  made 
one,  all  the  mystery  is  cleared. 

Might  nor  such  a  theme  be  as  worthy  of  in- 
spiration as  the  Economies  of  life,  which  Solo- 
mon has  put  forth  in  his  "  Proverbs  "  ?  or  the 
misanthropical  speculations  of  false  philoso- 
phy, which  he  seems  to  have  attempted  in 
"  Ecclesiastes"? 

What  event,  over  which  he  has  any  control, 
in  the  life  of  a  man,  is  so  important  to  him  as 
his  own  marriage  ?  What  secular  engagement 
of  his  is  so  sacred  ?  When  entered  into  from 
right  motives  and  with  pure  affections,  what 

*  I  bare  purposely  refrained  from  a  critical  analysis  of  this 
wonderful  Poem,  or  any  comparisons  of.it  with  the  Oriental 
Nuptial  Songs  similar  in  design  to  the  Epithalamium  of  the 
Greeks.  —  My  only  desire  and  aim  is  to  set  forth  the  plain, 
simple  truths  of  God's  Word ;  thus  showing  the  righteousness 
of  His  laws  and  the  wisdom  of  His  appointments.  I  trust  that 
the  minds  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  people  will  be  awakened  to  search 
into  these  things.  God,  in  His  own  good  time,  will  raise  up 
worthy  and  able  interpreters  of  His  Law  of  true  marriage. 


188 


Solomon's  song. 


condition  of  life  is  so  near  the  lieaveuly  and 
holy  as  marriage? 

Has  not  God  sanctioned  this  idea,  when 
making  such  union  the  type  of  Christ's  union 
with  the  Church  ? 

But  it  must  be  true  marriage,  one  man  with 
one  woman,  to  make  the  true  ly^Q ;  and  Solomon 
uttered  or  prophesied  his  own  condemnation, 
the  condemnation  of  polygamy  in  this  his  "  Song 
of  Songs,"  just  as  surely  whether  we  consider  it 
under  the  allegorical  or  under  the  natural  inter- 
pretation. 

Let  us  for  a  moment  picture  what  would  have 
been  the  result  had  the  "  wisest  of  men "  fol- 
lowed his  own  teachings.  In  all  his  writings  he 
has  taught  and  upheld  strict  monogamy.  If 
Solomon  had  kept  faith  with  his  "  dove,"  his 
"  only  one,"  "  his  prince's  daughter,"  nor  allowed 
his  eyes  to  wander,  "  like  the  fool's  eyes,  to  the 
ends  of  the  earth  "  in  search  of  "  strange  wo- 
men," he  would  never  have  forsaken  his  own 
faith,  never  lost  the  favor  of  the  Lord. 

There  is  no  record  in  the  Bible  of  a  Hebrew 
becoming  an  idolater  who  had  not,  previously, 
become  a  polygamist. 

The  worst  vices  and  sins  of  Solomon  resulted 


Solomon's  song. 


189 


from  liis  polygamy.  With  one  wife  only,  the 
temptations  to  all  these  wicked  courses  and  evil 
deeds  would  have  been  removed.  Solomon  would 
have  done  right  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord,  and 
enjoyed  the  crowning  blessing  promised  to  his 
obedience  —  long  life  ! 

How  long  he  might  have  lived  no  one  can 
tell,  but  very,  very  long ;  —  longer,  it  may  rea- 
sonably be  assumed,  than  any  instance  of  natural 
longevity  since  his  day. 

There  are  some  instances  on  record,  and  well 
authenticated  —  that  of  Old  Parr  is  one,  where 
human  life  has  been  prolonged  over  one  hundred 
and  fifty  years. 

Might  not  Solomon  have  lived  as  long  as  the 
oldest  patriarch  ?  Isaac  lived  to  the  age  of  one 
hundred  and  eighty  years.  Perhaps  the  "  Wise 
King  "  might  have  greatly  exceeded  this,  had 
he  lived  a  holy  life ;  his  years  might  have  been 
lengthened  to  the  age  of  Noah,  nine  hundred 
and  fifty  years,  and  have  made  comprehensible 
to  our  now  short-lived  race  the  truth  of  antedi- 
luvian longevity. 

One  thing  is  sure ;  if  Solomon  had  lived  vir- 
tuously he  would  have  had  his  short  life  of  fifty- 
eight  years  wonderfully  lengthened. 


190 


Solomon's  song. 


He  had  in  liis  keeping  all  tlie  materials  for 
the  best  happiness  earth  affords,  or  that  men 
can  with  honor  and  right  enjoy ;  and  he  had 
the  power  and  wisdom  to  use  his  own  gifts  in 
the  God-iike  enjoyment  of  doing  good  to  others. 

Thus  ordered,  all  his  reign  would  have  been 
years  of  peace,  prosperity,  and  glory  to  the  peo- 
ple of  Israel ;  because  "  righteousness  exalteth 
a  nation."  This  truth  Solomon  well  knew,  for 
he  taught  it. 

What  perfection  in  the  best  modes  of  civil- 
ization the  nation  might  have  reached !  Jeru- 
salem would  have  become  the  great  centre  of 
intellectual  wisdom,  of  j)ractical  philosophy,  of 
<noral  improvement  for  the  whole  world. 

The  people  of  Israel  might  have  been  pre- 
pared, through  such  a  long,  righteous,  and  peace- 
ful reign,  for  the  Advent  of  the  Prince  of  Peace, 
the  King  of  Righteousness.  Then  the  United 
Tribes  would  have  welcomed  with  joyous  hosan- 
nas  the  entrance  of  their  Messiah  into  the  Holy 
City,  where  the  Glorious  Temple,  that  Solomon 
built,  would  have  opened  its  everlasting  doors 
that  the  King  of  Glory  should  come  in. 

The  whole  history  of  the  world  would  have 
been  changed  and  blessed.    All  men  that  have 


Solomon's  song. 


191 


lived,  from  that  day  to  tins,  would  have  been 
made  better  and  happier,  if  Solomon  had  kept 
faith  with  his  one  wife'^ 

And  Solomon  himself,  what  an  increase  of 
riches,  power  and  honor  would  have  been  his,  if 
he  had  ordered  his  married  life  in  the  right  way, 
which  he  has  set  forth  in  his  writings!  Then, 
indeed,  he  might  have  been  worthy  of  the  glo- 
rious name  bestowed  on  him  at  his  birth  by  the 
prophet  of  God  —  "  Jedidiah"  beloved  of  the 
Lord. 

*  Is  it  not  because  they  have  accepted  the  monk's  legend  that 
this  false  interpretation  of  Solomon's  Song  is  given  ?  While 
our  American  clergy  thus,  as  it  were,  canonize  the  "  Wise  King 
of  Israel,"  how  can  they  set  forth  his  abominable  wickedness  ? 

Do  our  Protestant  ministers  generally  believe  in  the  monk's 
interpretation,  that  Solomon  was  the  favored  recipient,  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  of  the  deepest  and  holiest  mysteries  of  man's 
salvation  —  the  love  and  union  of  Christ  and  the  Church? 

Would  the  people  of  America  believe  this  interpretation,  if 
the  Gospel  preacher  would  honestly  describe  the  character  of 
Solomon  as  it  is  portrayed  in  the  eleventh  chapter  of  the  first 
Bool:  of  Kings?  He  is  there  shown  as  a  selfish,  sensual  profli- 
gate, wasting  his  God-gifts  of  Wisdom,  Eiches,  and  Honor  on 
a  harem  of  harlots,  thus  dishonoring  his  faith  and  desecrating 
his  Church  —  an  impenitent  sinner,  who  rebelled  against  the 
just,  aj'e,  merciful  sentence  of  the  Most  High,  and  died, 
leaving  the  curse  of  idolatry  and  polygamy  on  his  kingdom. 
He  died  in  his  sins,  a  disgrace  to  kings,  a  shame  to  his  Church, 
a  castaway  from  God ! 


CHAPTER  XII. 


THE  KINGS  AND  THE  PROPHETS. 

IHE  great  centre  of  Idolatry  and  Polygamy 


J-  in  the  Hebrew  nation  was  broken  np  by  the 
dividing  of  the  kingdom.  The  poison  of  those 
sins  which  had,  during  Solomon's  reign,  been 
concentrated  at  Jerusalem,  was  now  diffused 
throughout  Judea  and  Israel.  The  wasting  was 
sometimes  stayed,  but  the  corrupting  causes  were 
never  removed ;  nor  did  they  cease  in  the  king- 
dom of  Israel  till  the  ten  Tribes,  conquered, 
subdued,  rooted  out,  were  dispersed  and  lost 
among  the  heathen  nations,  whose  sins  they  had 
imitated  and  exceeded. 

Lost  themselves,  and  lost  to  the  knowledge  of 
men ;  the  descendants  of  ten  of  Jacob's  sons, 
who  had  been  under  the  special  protection  of 
the  Almighty  for  more  than  a  thousand  years, 
were  lost  as  completely  and  irrecoverably  as  the 
stately  cedar  of  Lebanon,  when  its  rotten  trunk, 
torn  in  pieces  by  the  whirlwind,  is  scattered, 


192 


THE  KINGS.  193 

ground  to  rubbish,  and  trodden  down  and  lost  in 
tbe  dirt  of  tbe  earth ! 

The  kingdom  of  Judah  was,  for  David's  sake, . 
to  be  spared  its  nationality  till  the  coming  of  the 
Messiah.  But  the  canker-worms  of  unbelief 
and  lust  had  eaten  into  the  heart  of  the  Olive 
of  Mount  Zion ;  its  decay,  though  slow,  was  sure 
and  inevitable.  It  bowed  its  head  to  the  tem- 
pest of  God's  justice  in  the  Captivity,  and  for 
seventy  years  it  lay  prostrate  in  the  dust  of 
humiliation.  It  was  revived  and  raised,  by  the 
Mercy  of  God,  on  the  repentance  of  the  people ; 
but  the  wounds  and  putrefying  sores  of  its  heart 
were  never  healed ;  the  dews  of  heavenly  life 
never  more  freshened  its  leaves. 

The  sword  of  Titus  was  sharpened  on  the  sins 
of  Solomon.  The  fires,  kindled  by  the  self- 
executed  Jews,  which  even  Roman  pity  could 
not  extinguish,  these  avenging  flames  that  were 
needed  to  cleanse  the  polluted  city,  burned  down 
to  the  foundation-stones  the  second  Temj)le; 
thus  effacing  forever  the  last  visible  record  of 
the  glory  and  gorgeousness  of  that  first  "  House 
of  God  "  built  by  Solomon. 

This  history  has  a  moral  which  cannot  be 
misunderstood.    Its  lessons  teach  that  the  one 

17 


194 


THE  KINGS. 


true  God,  the  one  true  wife,  these  are  the  only 
sure  conditions  that  make  man  virtuous  and 
good.  Adultery  and  Idolatry  are  the  twin 
"  Shapes  "  of  Milton  —  his  "  Sin  and  Death." 

Rehoboam,  it  is  recorded,  "  desired  many 
wives,"  as  was  natural  in  his  case.  He  had  been 
trained  in  that  school ;  still  his  harem  was  a 
small  affair  compared  with  Solomon's.  In 
Chronicles  the  record  for  Rehoboam  is  "  eigh- 
teen wives,  and  three -score  concubines."  He 
was  an  idolater,  and  "  did  evil  in  the  sight  of  the 
Lord." 

His  son  Abijah,  or  Abijam,  followed  the  ex- 
ample of  his  predecessors,  but  on  a  still  lessen- 
ing scale.  He  "  married  fourteen  wives,"  and 
"  he  walked  in  all  the  sins  of  his  father." 

From  this  time  to  the  close  of  the  monarchy, 
we  have  glimpses  of  the  "  institution ;  "  with 
intervals  of  reformation,  during  the  reigns  of 
those  "  Kings  who  did  right  in  the  eyes  of  the 
Lord." 

It  is  worthy  of  special  note  that  the  bad 
kings  are,  with  scarce  an  exception,  sons  of 
heathen  mothers ;  the  good  kings  are  sons  of 
Jewish  mothers,  all  save  one,  Asa,  (see  1  Kings 
XV.  13 ;)  and  these  good  kings  are  never  recorded 
as  polygamists. 


THE  KINGS. 


195 


There  is  one  notable  exception,  however,  and 
men  of  the  Christian  priesthood  should  carefully 
ponder  it.  Those  who  are  now  imputing  the 
establishment,  or  the  "  toleration,"  of  polygamy 
to  the  Bible,  may  see  as  in  a  glass  the  destnic- 
tive  consequences  of  thus  endeavoring  to  excuse 
the  sin,  or  lessen  the  idea  of  its  criminality. 

Read  the  history  of  Joash,  2  Chronicles 
xxiv.  Jehoiada,  the  high  priest,  who  placed 
Joash  on  the  throne,  took  for  this  young  king 
of  Judah  two  wives.  After  the  death  of  the 
high  priest,  the  king,  as  polygamists  are  prone 
to  do,  fell  into  idolatry.  The  son  of  Jehoiada, 
who  was  then  high  priest,  reproved  the  king, 
and  he  immediately  ordered  this  son  of  his 
benefactor,  but  his  tempter  too,  to  be  put  to 
death.    Thus  sin  leads  to  sin. 

There  is  also  a  lesson  to  be  found  in  the  Book 
of  Ezra,  that  might  be  useful  in  solving  the 
problem  which  seems  to  have  puzzled  grave  and 
learned  men,  viz. :  whether  the  heathen  converts 
in  India  may,  or  may  not,  as  Christians,  retain 
a  plurality  of  wives  ? 

When  Ezra  went  up  from  the  Babylonish 
captivity  to  rebuild  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem, 
and  restore  the  worship  of  the  true  God,  he 


196 


THE  PROPHETS. 


found  tliat  many  of  the  returned  Jews  had 
intermarried  with  heathen  women,  and  had 
*'  strange  wives." 

Whether  any  man  had  more  than  one  of  these 

wives  "  is  not  recorded ;  but  from  the  customs 
of  the  heathen,  and  from  the  narrative  itself,  the 
conclusion  is  strongly  in  favor  of  a  "  plurality." 

If  this  was  not  the  case,  if  every  Jew,  in  all 
the  seventy  years,  during  which  that  j)eople  had 
been  scattered,  without  law  or  worship,  if,  I  say, 
the  Jewish  men  had  kept  themselves  free  from 
this  sin,  each  one  taking  but  one  wife,  the  proof 
that  such  marriage  was  the  law  of  God,  which 
had  been  sacredly  and  always  inculcated  on  the 
Hebrew  people,  though  broken  at  times  by  their 
kings,  must  be  apparent  to  every  Bible  critic. 

That  the  great  mass  of  the  Jewish  men  had 
always  kept  strictly  to  the  one- wife  system  is  of 
a  surety  true.  They  could  not  do  otherwise. 
There  could  not  have  been  "  two  or  three  wives  " 
attainable  for  each  man.  God  has  so  ordered, 
that  monogamy  is  and  must  be  absolutely  the 
rule  for  the  majority.  Where  polygamy  is 
established,  it  is  always  the  exception  in  favor 
of  kings  and  rulers,  (whether  priests  or  laymen,) 
war- chiefs  and  men  of  power. 


THE  PROPHETS. 


197 


The  poorer  and  subordinate  men  can  never 
obtain  but  one  wife ;  while  servants,  soldiers, 
sailors,  and  other  dependents  usually  are  pre- 
vented from  marrying  at  all. 

But  wherever  the  plurality  system  is  estab- 
lished or  allowed,  it  vitiates  the  marriage  con- 
tract, all  the  same,  whether  a  man  has  fifty  wives 
or  one  wife,  or  no  wife  at  all.  If  the  husband 
has  the  right,  by  law  or  custom,  to  take  more 
than  one  wife,  the  right  of  the  wife  to  her  own 
husband  is  disallowed.  He  is  only  hers  by 
sufferance. 

The  Jews  that  came  to  Jerusalem  with 
"  strange  wives,"  were,  it  appears,  mostly 
"princes  and  rulers"  and  "priests,"  —  that  is, 
men  who  could  maintain  more  than  one  wife; 
the  class  of  men  that,  where  polygamy  is  al- 
lowed, invariably  avail  themselves  of  the  "  plu- 
rality "  system. 

But  Ezra  was  not  daunted  by  the  array  even 
of  the  names  of  "  many  priests."  The  people 
had  in  Ezra  an  earnest  and  pious  leader,  who 
was  true  to  his  trust. 

He  had  no  difficulty  in  deciding  the  matter. 
God's  law  on  one  side,  and  its  violators  on  the 
other,  he  never  canvassed  the  expediency  of  the 

17* 


198 


THE  PROPHETS. 


measure;  only  duty  to  God  and  obedience  to 
His  law  were  considered.    See  Ezra  ix.  and  x. 

So  tlie  way  was  plain  ;  the  "  strange  wives  " 
were  put  away,  and  tlieir  children  also. 

Now  the  American  Christian  Missionaries  in 
India,  if  they  do  not  acknowledge  the  primal 
law  of  God,  one  man  for  one  woman ;  nor  the 
Law  of  God's  providence  that  has  always  and 
every  where  punished  the  infraction  of  this  pri- 
mal law ;  if  they  do  not  believe  that  the  law  of 
Revelation,  in  prohibiting  adultery,  prohibited 
polygamy,  must  they  not  yet  have  some  respect 
for  the  law  of  the  Gospel  under  which  they  hold 
their  right  to  "  teach  all  nations  "  ? 

What  is  the  Marriage  Law  of  the  Gospel  ? 

This :  "  Let  every  man  have  his  own  wife, 
and  let  every  woman  have  her  own  husband." 
1  Cor.  vii.  2. 

The  prophets,  from  Isaiah  to  Malachi,  are 
true  to  the  Divine  appointment  of  marriage. 
Not  a  word  can  be  found  in  all  the  prophetic 
Books  to  support  those  views  which  would 
desecrate  the  Old  Testament  revelation  by 
ascribing  to  it  a  toleration  of  polygamy  or 
licentiousness. 

The  words  of  Malachi,  tlie  last  of  the  \>to- 


THE  PROPHETS. 


199 


plicts,  have  been  quoted.  But  turn  again  to 
the  Holy  Book,  and  read  the  second  chapter 
of  that  awful  prophecy.  See  how  Malachi  de- 
nounces the  priests  for  their  unfaithfulness, 
and  the  people  for  idolatry  and  adultery. 

The  language  can  bear  but  one  interpretation ; 
a  scathing  rebuke  to  all  who  substitute  their  own 
opinions  for  God's  truth,  and  who  have  thus 
corrupted  God's  law  of  marriage,  and  of  wor- 
ship. 

Thus  closes  the  Old  Testament,  as  it  began, 
with  the  Divine  warrant  of  one  man  and  one 
woman  only,  in  the  Union  of  Marriage. 

No  other  law  of  connection  for  the  sexes 
was  ever  sanctioned  by  the  authority  of  the 
Creator. 

Every  transgression  of  this  law,  recorded  in 
the  Old  Testament,  has  its  punishment  recorded 
also.  This  punishment  fell  on  the  transgressor 
and  on  his  children.  We  have  gone  over  the 
list  —  Abraham,  Jacob,  David,  Solomon.  No 
son  of  these  men,  born  of  the  unlawful  wives, 
was  a  good  man  —  save  the  two  sons  of  Rachel. 

A  good  man  and  his  lawful  wife  may  have 
bad  sons ;  but  that  all  the  sons  of  those  four 
men,  born  of  the  "  strange  wives,"  should  prove 


200 


THE  PEOPHETS. 


wicked,  and  be  tlie  trial  and  torment,  the  sliame 
and  sorrow  of  their  fathers  in  their  lifetime ; 
or,  like  Solomon,  destroy  the  best  works  of  his 
father  after  his  death  —  these  results  are  not  to 
be  put  aside. 

And  yet,  all  that  these  men  suffered  could 
not  cancel  their  crimes.  All  the  trials  of  Abra- 
ham ;  all  the  afflictions  of  Jacob ;  all  the  tears 
and  confessions  of  David,  did  not  blot  out 
their  iniquities. 

Nor  did  even  the  forgiveness  of  God  to  each 
of  these  penitent  sinners,  do  away  the  evil  con- 
sequences of  their  sins. 

The  American  Church,  meaning  thereby  every 
denomination  of  Christians  in  our  land,  the 
Church  is  now  trailing  her  beautiful  garments, 
all  dark  with  dust,  under  the  curse  of  the  sins 
of  Abraham,  Jacob,  and  David;  sins  which  she 
does  not  rebuke. 

Men  every  where  are  led  to  think  lightly  of 
the  Seventh  Commandment,  and  divorce  and 
lewdness  are  tolerated  as  practices  necessary  for 
tJie  peace  of  society  ! 

What  would  be  the  effect  if  murder,  theft,  and 
false  witness  were  as  prevalent,  or  passed  as 
unrebuked  from  the  pulpit,  as  unpunished  by 


THE  PEOPIIETS. 


201 


the  law,  as  licentiousness  does  now  among  na- 
tions calling  themselves  Christian  ? 

How  came  it  to  pass  that  the  Seventh  Com- 
mandment should  be  selected  as  the  least  sacred 
of  the  Ten  ?  Came  it  not  from  the  "  lusts  of 
the  flesh  ?  "  that  is,  from  the  temptations  of  the 
devil,  who  has  seduced  the  great  ones  of  the 
world  to  do  him  homage  through  licentiousness  ? 

Every  kingdom  and  people  on  earth  are  now 
sufferingj  more  or  less,  from  the  wickedness  that 
Solomon,  by  his  wisdom  and  power,  made  gra- 
cious nearly  three  thousand  years  ago.  His 
sins  have  corrupted  all  kings  and  rulers ;  and 
through  these  high  examples,  public  sentiment 
is  corrupted.  Even  many  Christians,  so  called, 
look  on  the  Seventh  Commandment  as  very 
respectable  for  good  people  to  observe,  but  not 
exactly  binding  as  a  law,  because  those  good  old 
patriarchs,  that  pious  David,  and  the  wise  Solo- 
mon, did  not  scruple  to  set  it  aside. 

These  evil  results,  this  lax  morality,  have  been, 
and  now  are,  the  work  in  a  great  measure  of  the 
priesthood. 

The  Jewish  priesthood  do  not  like  to  con- 
demn the  old  Fathers  and  Kings  of  their  ances- 
tral religion.   The  Christian  clergy,  whose  duty 


202 


THE  PROPHETS. 


it  is  to  expound  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testament,  to  hold  up  and  to  prove  the 
Righteousness  of  God  from  the  righteousness 
of  His  laws  and  dealings  with  men,  have  utterly 
failed  to  magnify  and  make  honorable  the  Sev- 
enth Commandment. 

Every  where,  and  by  all  denominations,  it  has 
been,  by  the  priesthood,  conceded  that  the  Crea- 
tor has  made  void  his  primary  law  of  marriage 
by  "  tolerating  "  its  transgressions. 

They  virtually  assert  that  God,  in  the  Seventh 
Commandment,  did  not  take  men  much  into  ac- 
count in  the  prohibition,  but  laid  the  severe 
injunction  of  the  law  on  women  —  thus  making 
a  distinction  in  the  moral  government  of  the 
sexes. 

Can  we  wonder  that  licentiousness  among 
men  should  now  be  the  great  sin  of  the  world  ? 

In  the  early  ages  of  the  Christian  Church 
it  was  not  thus.  The  Apostles  and  primitive 
Christians  kept  the  faith  in  purity  of  life  as  well 
as  in  doctrine.  They  loved  and  obeyed  the 
Gospel  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  never  failed 
to  rebuke  men  for  their  adulteries  and  sins. 

But  as  soon  as  the  Church  grasped  at  secular 
power,  she  lost  her  Divine  love  and  purity. 


THE  PKOPIIETS. 


203 


The  priestliood  began  to  pander  to  the  vices  of 
Kings,  and  to  seek  precedents  for  the  indulgence 
of  their  sins.  Tlie  Bible  was  interpreted  to  suit 
Power,  not  to  set  forth  Truth. 

The  sins  of  good  men,  that  had  been  recorded 
with  the  evil  results  of  tliese  transgressions,  and 
thus  made  warnings  for  iniquity  and  encourage- 
ments of  penitence  to  hope  forgiveness,  —  these 
transgressions  of  the  primal  law  of  marriage 
were,  and  -are,  interpreted  by  Theological  writers 
and  Ecclesiastical  authorities,  as  "  tolerated  "  or 
allowed,  or  rebuked  with  gentleness  only. 

The  dishonor  and  unhappiness  of  women  in 
these  adulterous  connections  are  of  no  account 
with  the  priesthood. 

The  evil  effect  of  thus  degrading  the  mother 
before  her  children,  making  her  the  "  inferior 
wife  "  or  "  concubine,"  is  never  even  lamented 
by  these  learned  divines ;  it  is  simj^ly  ignored. 

If  we  accept  the  explanations  of  these  com- 
mentators and  expounders  of  the  Bible,  Pro- 
testant as  well  as  Romanist,  we  must  believe 
that  the  Lord  God  has  had  a  peculiar  indulgence 
for  the  sensual  passions  of  men,  particularly  for 
the  lusts  of  good  men,  such  as  Abraham  was, 
and  J acob  and  David ;  and  also  for  the  vices  of 
Kings. 


204 


THE  PROPHETS. 


In  our  land  tlie  question,  between  the  true  and 
the  false  in  these  interpretations  of  God's  law  of 
marriage,  must  soon  be  brought  to  the  bar  of 
public  scrutiny,  and  tested  by  men  not  of  these 
Theological  Schools.  If  the  Bible  authority  for 
monogamy  fail  us,  then  "  Free  Love,"  "  Mormon- 
ism,"  or  some  other  form  of  the  false  in  domestic 
life,  must  ultimately  prevail. 

Should  the  Old  Testament  fail  us,  the  result 
will  be  equally  disastrous  to  virtue  and  religion, 
because  the  New  Testament  does  not  introduce 
any  new  law  in  reference  to  marriage,  as  will  be 
shown  hereafter. 

But  the  Old  Testament  has  not  failed  us.  I 
appeal  to  every  reader  who  has  followed  me  thus 
far,  has  not  the  evidence  that  monogamy,  or 
the  marriage  of  one  man  with  one  woman,  is 
the  Divine  Law,  which  from  Genesis  to  Malachi 
is  revealed  as  God's  ordinance  for  humanity, 
been  fully  sustained  ? 

Does  not  the  marriage  of  the  first  pair,  when 
the  Creator  was  the  Priest,  and  Heaven  and 
Earth  the  witnesses,  stand  to-day  as  the  only 
rule  and  model  of  conjugal  union  for  men  and 
women  ever  sanctioned  and  sanctified  by  the 
Lord  in  His  threefold  Law  of  Creation,  of 
Providence,  and  of  Revelation  ? 


CHAPTER  XIII. 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  JESUS  CHEIST. 

IHE  laws  of  God  are  eternal  and  uncliange- 


X  able.  His  judgments  are  "  righteous  alto- 
getlier."  In  Him  "is  no  variableness,  neither 
shadow  of  turning." 

What  we  call  a  miracle  is  but  the  law  of  God 
manifested  in  its  operation. 

The  "  Cherubim  and  flaming  sword,"  that 
kept  the  *'  tree  of  life  "  from  the  hands  of  the 
rebels  in  Eden,  were  but  symbols  of  the  sharp 
fears  and  terrible  obstacles  that  the  first  volun- 
tary transgression  of  God's  INIoral  Law  (the  Ten 
Commandments)  raises  up  before  every  trans- 
gressor. 

The  expulsion  of  Adam  from  Paradise  is  only 
what  happens  to  every  human  soul  that  sins ;  it 
is  driven  away  and  away,  farther  and  farther 
from  righteousness,  which  is  the  true  Eden. 

Every  Court  of  Justice  in  our  land,  and  all 
the  world  over,  would  verify  these  assertions. 

18  205 


206       THE   GOSPEL   OF   JESUS  CHRIST. 

Every  criminal  calendar,  every  prison,  every 
place  of  execution  will,  witli  mournful  voice, 
affirm  the  proclivity  of  the  sinner  to  sin. 

The  hope  held  out  to  the  first  transgressors 
was  identical  with  that  now  offered  to  a  sinful 
world  by  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ.  The 
"  seed  of  the  woman  "  was  Christ. 

Kedemption  by  faith  in  the  "  seed "  was 
preached  to  Adam  and  Eve  in  the  promise 
given  them,  that  it  (the  Seed)  should  bruise 
the  serpent's  head,  as  truly  as  "  Christ  our 
righteousness  "  was  preached  by  the  Apostles. 

No  new  law  for  man's  moral  government  has 
been  framed  since  the  creation  of  the  first  hu- 
man pair. 

We  have  the  proof  of  analogy  for  this  asser-  • 
tion.  The  great  law  of  the  material  universe, 
gravitation,  must  have  been  the  governing 
power  of  matter  from  the  beginning.  It  has 
two  forces,  the  centripetal  and  the  centrifugal  ; 
these,  always  acting  in  harmony,  uphold  the 
whole  frame  of  nature. 

In  like  manner,  the  Moral  Law  has  been  the 
rule  for  all  rational  beings  created  in  the  "  image 
of  God."  This  Moral  Law  has  two  forces  to 
keep  human  beings  in  the  right  way; — namely, 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  JESUS  CHEIST.  207 

obedience  to  God,  and  rigliteoiisness  towards 
each  other ;  both  modes  of  conduct  springing 
from  one  source.  Love,  j)ure,  undefiled  love ; 
the  motive  power  of  all  good  in  the  spiritual 
universe,  as  geavitation  is  of  material  good  in 
the  world  of  matter. 

This  Moral  Law,  and  no  other,  was  the  great 
Charter  of  the  Jewish  Lawgiver,  and  the  theme 
of  all  the  prophetic  and  preceptive  writers  of 
the  Old  Church. 

This  Moral  Law,  and  no  other,  was  the  basis 
of  Christ's  Sermon  on  the  Mount  —  the  first 
recorded  exposition  of  Gospel  doctrine. 

Did  Jesus  Christ  explain  away  or  set  aside 
the  Seventh  Commandment  because  two  of  the 
patriarchs  and  the  pious  psalmist  had  broken 
it? 

Did  He  make  men  less  culpable  than  woman 
for  this  sin,  because  men  have  attempted  to 
legalize  their  crimes  by  polygamy  ?  E,ead  the 
bth  chapter  of  Matthew,  vei\  VI  to  33. 

Christ  revealed,  what  had  not  been  so  clearly 
made  known  under  the  old  covenant,  the  spirit- 
uality of  the  Commandments,  and  the  everlast- 
ing punishments  for  disobedience. 

Before  this,  the  majority  of  believers  had  sup- 


208      THE  GOSPEL  OF  JESUS  CHRIST. 

posed  that  temporal  punishment  in  this  life  only 
would  be  inflicted  on  transgressors. 

The  Saviour,  in  revealing  His  spiritual  king- 
dom, made  manifest  also  the  more  stringent 
requirements  of  purity  in  the  heart,  which  before 
was  exacted  in  the  life  ;  but  the  sin  of  lust  was, 
by  prohibiting  adultery,  just  as  surely  forbidden 
in  the  Law  from  Mount  Sinai  as  it  was  in  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount. 

Christ  expounded  the  Law  of  Moses  in  its 
spiritual  meaning.  The  law  of  marriage  was 
instituted,  as  I  have  repeatedly  stated,  in  Eden 
by  Jehovah ;  and  just  as  it  was  at  first,  so  was 
it  re-afiirmed  by  the  Redeemer  four  thousand 
years  after  Eden  had  been  forfeited. 

"  Have  ye  not  read,"  said  Jesus  to  the  Phari- 
sees, "  that  He  which  made  them  at  the  begin- 
ning made  them  male  and  female, 

"  And  said,  For  this  cause  shall  a  man  leave 
father  and  mother,  and  shall  cleave  to  his  wife : 
and  they  twain  shall  be  one  flesh  ? 

"  Wherefore  they  are  no  more  twain,  but  one 
flesh.  What  therefore  God  hath  joined  together, 
let  not  man  put  asunder."  {3Ialthew  xix.  4-6.) 

Here  is  the  first  and  only  law  of  marriage 
ever  put  forth  by  God  the  Creator,  proclaimed 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.  209 

by  God  the  Saviour,  as  the  then  existing  law  for 
the  Jews. 

Did  the  Pharisees  deny  this  Law  ?  Did  they 
bring  forward  any  argument  to  invalidate  its 
sacredness,  appealing  to  the  flagrant  instances 
of  polygamy  that  had  been  notorious  in  their 
nation  ? 

Not  a  word  of  this.  The  idea  that  polygamy 
was  allowed  or  "  tolerated  "  by  the  laws  of  the 
Jews  is  completely  refuted  by  this  scene  "  be- 
yond Jordan." 

The  Pharisees,  cavilers  as  they  were,  would 
have  seized  this  opportunity  to  inquire,  had 
"  two  or  three  wives  "  been  considered  lawful, 
how  such  oneness,  as  Christ  described,  could  be, 
if  a  man  had  more  than  one  wife  ? 

The  Son  of  God  could  not  have  explained 
such  a  union,  for  CTmnipotent  Power  cannot 
make  the  false  to  be  the  true. 

The  Pharisees  submitted  at  once  to  the  views 
advanced  by  Jesus  Christ,  of  the  system  of  strict 
monogamy.  They  never  intimate  that  any  man 
had  or  might,  lawfully,  have  more  than  one 
wife  at  a  time;  but  they  press  the  question  of 
divorce.;  they  seek  to  know  why,  if  marriage  is 

18* 


210 


THE  GOSPEL   OF  JESUS  CHRIST. 


sucli  a  sacred  union,  a  man  was  ever  permitted 
to  put  away  his  wife  and  to  marry  another  ? 

Then  the  more  stringent  exposition  of  the  law 
of  divorce  was  put  forth  by  Christ.  The  law  of 
marriage  was  not  changed.  One  man  with  one 
woman  was  the  rule  of  creation  ;  one  man  with 
one  woman  is  the  rule  forever. 

But  Jesus  Christ  shows  the  spirituality  of 
true  marriage,  and  the  wickedness  of  lust,  and 
the  licentiousness  of  men  and  the  wrongs  of 
women,  in  a  light  which  should  make  every 
Christian  man  ashamed  to  justify  the  sins  of  his 
own  sex. 

No  Commandment  among  the  Ten  was  more 
rigidly  enforced,  in  the  Saviour's  teachings,  than 
the  Seventh;  in  its  spirit  and  in  its  letter  He 
upheld  it ;  and  no  portion  of  His  followers  were 
so  tenderly  cared  for  as  women. 

He  exposed  the  injustice  and  condemned  the 
practice  of  divorce,  except  for  one  cause,  unfaith- 
fulness. 

How  crushingly  Christ  showed  the  mean  hy- 
pocrisy of  the  men  who  brought  the  woman  into 
the  Temple  and  accused  her  before  Him,  when 
their  own  sins  were  accusing  them  before  God  ! 
And  His  simple  answer  made  each  creeping 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.  211 


coward,  as  he  stole  out  of  tlie  Temple,  feel  in 
his  own  conscience  tlie  sentence  of  "  Guilty  !  " 

So  would  His  rebuke  have  stricken  the  Scribes 
and  Pharisees,  who  questioned  Hira  of  divorce, 
if  they  had  been  greater  sinners,  if  they  had 
been  guilty  of  degrading  women  from  the  com- 
panionship of  the  chaste,  conjugal  union,  to  the 
licentiousness  of  harem  bondage. 

The  glimpses  afforded  us  of  the  private  life 
of  Jesus  the  Son  of  Mary,  in  His  human  aspect, 
are  so  few,  that  we  cannot  judge  of  His  feelings 
as  a  man ;  but  the  great  Apostle  asserts  that 
"  He  (Jesus)  was  in  all  points  tempted  like  as 
we  are,  yet  without  sin."  —  Hebrews  iv.  15. 

Is  not  Christ's  spotless  life  the  example  for 
His  followers  ?  How  dare  a  man,  professing 
Christianity  and  preaching  the  Gospel,  lower 
the  standard  of  purity  which  Christ  taught,  and 
by  which  He  lived  ? 

Does  not  His  perfect  obedience  to  the  laAV 
give  the  lie  to  the  plea  so  often  urged  that  the 
sensual  passions  of  men  are  too  violent  to  be 
controlled,  and  must  therefore  be  indulged  ? 
This  plea  is  made  without  shame  by  some  who 
call  themselves  honorable,  and  even  religious 
men.    I  appeal  to  every  honest,  truth-seeking 


212      THE  GOSPEL  OF  JESUS  CHRIST. 


reader  of  the  Bible,  does  not  every  precept  of 
the  Gospel  enjoin  chastity  on  men  as  sternly  as 
it  does  on  women  ? 

Is  there  a  single  intimation  that  a  plurality 
of  wives  was  ever  permitted  or  tolerated  by 
God's  law  ? 

Is  there  a  single  Scripture  authority  in  the 
Law  or  in  the  Gospel  for  the  lax  morality  in 
regard  to  the  sensual  lives  of  men,  which  is  ex- 
cused, at  least,  if  not  encouraged  in  most  Theo- 
logical writings,  and  which  seems  to  be  fast 
pervading  the  Protestant  American  Divinity ! 
The  sum  of  the  arguments,  or  sentiments  rather, 
is  this: 

That  the  Bible  has  no  absolute  law  against 
'polygamy ;  they  do  not  consider  it  adultery ! 
(If  Ave  could  legalize,  by  civil  law,  stealing, 
murder,  false  witness,  and  call  them  by  softer 
names,  would  they  cease  to  be  sins  ?) 

That  the  Jewish  polygamist  must  not  be 
judged  by  the  Moral  Law,  as  we  understand  it: 
that  adultery  was  forbidden,  but  not  "  two  or 
three  wives." 

A  man  might  not  take  his  neighbor's  wife,  but 
he  could  take  as  many  women  as  he  found  con- 
venient, if  these  were  free  when  he  married  them. 


THE  GOSPEL  OF   JESUS  CHRIST.  213 

The  man  only  could  be  sinned  against,  not 
tlie  woman.  If  she  took  two  husbands  let  her 
be  put  to  death,  and  the  last  husband  she  mar- 
ried. She  would  break  the  Seventh  Command- 
ment. But  Jacob  did  not  break  it ;  nor  did 
David ;  nor  did  Solomon  ;  they  were  men  ! 

Such,  put  in  honest  phraseology,  is  the  sub- 
stance of  the  arguments  by  which  this  license 
for  masculine  sensuality  is  now  maintained. 
Are  these  arguments  just  ?  Are  they  righteous? 
Are  they  ScrijDtural  ? 

The  question  was  submitted  to  Jesus  Christ 
by  the  Sadducees  of  a  woman  who  had  married 
seven  brothers  in  succession,  under  a  law  of  the 
Jews  that  enjoined  the  eldest  surviving  brother 
to  marry  his  deceased  brother's  widow.  The 
question  to  be  solved  was,  to  which  of  the  bro- 
thers the  woman,  at  the  resurrection,  would  be- 
long, as  all  "  seven  had  her  to  wife." 

Now,  if  the  laws  of  the  Jews  had  allowed 
polygamy  to  men,  such  a  question  concerning 
the  seven  hundred  wives  of  Solomon  would  have 
been  more  to  the  jDurpose.  To  know  whether  all 
these  wives  would  be  his  at  the  resurrection?  — 
or  what  number  would  be  allowed?  —  and  how 
the  selection  would  be  made  ?  These  would  have 


214       THE  GOSPEL  OF  JESUS  CHRIST. 

been  questions  indeed,  questions  of  the  greatest 
importance. 

The  number  of  Solomon's  wives  was  an  his- 
torical fact;  and  the  magnitude  of  the  matter 
would  have  afforded  a  grand  theme  of  discussion 
for  the  mocking  Sadducees,  who  sought  to  entrap 
the  Teacher  of  the  "  new  doctrine "  in  some 
mesh  of  heresy  against  Moses. 

Bat  even  these  unbelieving  Jews  did  not  pre- 
sume, unscrupulous  as  they  were,  to  propose  a 
grave  question  concerning  marriage  founded  on 
a  falsehood.  They  knew  that  Solomon  had  no 
warrant  in  the  Law  for  his  way  of  life.  They 
knew  the  seven  hundred  women  of  his  house- 
hold were  not  his  wives  ;  that  neither  he,  nor 
any  other  man,  had  or  could  have  but  one  law- 
ful wife  at  one  time. — Luke  xx.  27,  and  on. 

This  sacred  narrative  discloses  the  ideas  and 
customs  of  marriage  among  the  Jews  to  have 
been  as  incompatible  with  licensed  or  tolerated 
polygamy  as  our  own  institutions  are  at  this 
moment. 

Monogamy  was,  from  the  beginning  to  the 
end  of  the  Hebrew  polity,  from  Moses  to  the 
Maccabees,  the  only  law  of  marriage  for  the 
chosen  people.    It  was  the  law  under  which 


THE   GOSPEL  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.  215 


Abraliam  was  called  ;  it  was  the  law  under  wliicti 
Noah  was  saved ;  it  was  the  law  to  which  Adam 
was  subjected,  the  condition  for  which  he  was 
created. 

That  this  law  was  disregarded  by  many  hea- 
then nations  is  notoriously  true.  That  it  was 
broken  by  some  of  the  servants  of  the  Most  High 
is  true  also ;  but  did  either  of  these  violations 
make  the  law  null?  Were  its  conditions  less 
binding  because  it  was  disobeyed  ? 

If  transgressions  of  law  could  nullify  law, 
there  would  be  no  restrictions  on  sin  ;  the  moral 
world  would  long  ago  have  become  a  chaos  of 
ruin,  over  which  the  blackness  of  darkness  would 
brood  as  a  pall. 

But,  thanks  be  to  God,  all  the  errors  and 
transgressions  of  all  the  men  who  had  lived 
from  the  morn  of  creation  to  the  day  of  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  had  not  lowered  the 
standard  of  righteousness,  nor  struck  one  pro- 
hibited action  from  the  list  of  damnable  sins. 

Under  the  sublime  exposition  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  the  Ten  Commandments,  entire 
and  holy,  stand  out  as  though  written  in  let- 
ters of  fire  over  the  gate  of  Paradise,  to  strike 
every  transgressor  with   despair,  and  make 


216       THE   GOSPEL   OP   JESUS  CHRIST. 

every  apologist  for  transgressions  dumb  before 
God. 

"  Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  destroy  the 
law  or  the  prophets :  I  am  not  come  to  destroy, 
but  to  fulfill. 

"  For  verily  I  say  unto  you,  Till  heaven  and 
earth  pass,  one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise 
pass  from  the  law,  till  all  be  fulfilled."  {JIatfhew 
V.  17,  18.) 


CHAPTER  XIV. 


THE  APOSTLES. 

THAT  the  law  of  marriage,  set  fortli  by  the 
Apostles,  was  strict  Monogamy,  is  clear  as 
command  and  illustration  can  make  it. 

Let  every  man  have  his  own  wife,  and  let 
every  woman  have  her  own  husband,"  is  the 
command  of  St.  Paul.  (1  Corinthians  vii.  2.) 

Is  not  this  sentence  positive  in  its  require- 
ment of  monogamy  ?  Is  there  a  clearer  statute 
in  Justinian,  establishing  the  marriage  law  of 
the  Romans,  which  we  know  permitted  but  one 
wife  ?  Is  the  law  of  marriage  in  England,  or  in 
our  own  country,  more  definite  in  determining 
the  one- wife  system  ? 

In  the  same  s^jirit  all  the  instructions  con- 
cerning the  duties  of  the  married,  are  given  in 
this  chapter.  No  portion  of  the  directions  or 
commands  can  be  tortured  or  twisted  into  the 
idea  that,  in  referring  to  marriage,  more  wives 
than  one,  or  more  husbands  than  one,  were  ever 

19  217 


218 


THE  APOSTLES. 


imagined  to  be  compatible  witli  tbe  conjugal 
relation. 

In  the  same  spirit  all  the  injunctions  and  in- 
structions of  St.  Paul,  in  all  his  Epistles,  are  writ- 
ten. The  fifth  chapter  of  Ephesians  is  especially 
important  in  its  clear  illustration  of  the  duties 
of  the  married  pair.  The  reason  for  the  sub- 
mission of  the  wife  to  her  husband;  because  she 
represents  the  Church  and  her  husband  repre- 
sents Christ,  is  here,  for  the  first  time,  clearly- 
advanced  and  exjDlained.  The  holiness  of  mo- 
nogamy, or  true  marriage,  is  thus  illustrated 
in  a  Divine  metaphor,  which  infidelity  would 
not  dare  to  interpret  as  meaning  polygamy. 

There  is  a  gleam  of  light  on  this  holy  mys- 
tery in  the  rapt  prophecies  of  Isaiah,  {see  chap. 
Ixi.  ver.  10,)  but  the  elucidation  was  not  made 
till  the  new  Covenant  Church  was  established. 
Jesus  Christ  came  as  a  Bridegroom  to  claim  the 
Church,  without  spot  or  blemish,  as  the  Bride, 
the  Wife  —  "  one  with  Christ." 

In  this  light,  St.  Paul  urged  on  every  husband 
the  duty  of  loving  his  own  wife  as  the  Saviour 
loved  the  Church. 

The  love  of  Christ,  who  gave  himself  even 
to  death  to  redeem  the  Church,  was  to  be  a 


THE  APOSTLES. 


219 


living  example  for  every  man,  eacli  in  his  own 
family. 

*'  So  ought  men  to  love  their  wives  as  their 
own  bodies.  lie  that  loveth  his  wife  loveth 
himself. 

"  For  no  man  ever  yet  hated  his  own  flesh ; 
but  nourisheth  and  cherisheth  it,  even  as  the 
Lord  the  Church : 

"  For  we  are  members  of  His  body,  of  His 
flesh,  and  of  His  bones. 

"  For  this  cause  shall  a  man  leave  his  father 
and  mother,  and  shall  be  joined  unto  his  wife, 
and  they  two  shall  be  one  flesh. 

"  This  is  a  great  mystery :  but  I  speak  con- 
cerning Christ  and  the  church. 

"  Nevertheless  let  every  one  of  you  in  par- 
ticular so  love  his  wife  even  as  himself;  and  the 
wife  see  that  she  reverence  her  husband."  — 
Ephesians  v.  28-33. 

I  have  given  these  passages  as  St.  Paul's  own 
commentary  on  the  Bible  doctrine  of  marriage, 
or  the  union  of  the  sexes. 

The  reference  of  the  Apostle  to  the  primal 
law,  one  man  and  one  woman,  as  the  true  basis 
of  the  Covenant  of  love  and  union  which 
typified  Christ  and  the  Church,  is  conclusive  of 


220 


THE  APOSTLES. 


his  belief  in  the  universal  rule  of  IMonogamj, 
as  ordained  by  the  Creator,  for  the  human 
race. 

The  love  of  the  husband  for  his  wife,  the 
reverence  of  the  wife  for  her  husband,  described 
and  enforced  by  the  Apostle  —  these  are  as  in- 
comjjatible  with  polygamy,  as  are  the  ideas  of 
happiness  in  hell,  or  of  misery  in  heaven. 

In  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  Timothy,  a  direct 
command  is  given,  corresponding  with  all  his 
other  teachings. 

"  A  bishop  then  must  be  blameless,  the  hus- 
band of  one  wife."  —  1  Tim.  iii.  2. 

So  too  of  the  deacons. 

"Let  the  deacons  be  the  husbands  of  one 
wife."  —  1  Tim.  iii.  12. 

These  particular  charges  cannot  be  interpreted 
as  giving  license  to  other  men,  members  of  the 
churches,  to  have  more  wives  than  one,  but  the 
reverse. 

In  every  country  where  a  plurality  of  wives 
is  allowed,  or  "  tolerated,"  it  is  not  the  people 
who  practice  polygamy,  but  the  ruling  classes, 
among  which  the  priests,  usually,  take  high 
rank.  As  there  are  not  women  enough  to  make 
a  plurality  universal,  if  the  ruling  classes  in  the 


•    THE  APOSTLES. 


221 


church  are  restrained,  all  men  in  the  church  are 
restrained  also. 

These  commands  of  St.  Paul  were  necessary 
for  the  converted  heathen,  who  had  been  accus- 
tomed to  the  institution,  or  to  its  practice  among 
their  leading  men.  All  the  Apostle's  injunctions 
concerning  marriage  are  directed  to  these  heathen 
converts.  In  his  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  the 
subject  is  not  named — they  knew  and  upheld  the 
law  of  marriage  as  God  established  it.  So  also, 
the  Romans,  by  the  light  of  reason  and  con- 
science, had  come  to  the  knowledge  of  God's 
primal  law,  and  made  monogamy  the  basis  of 
their  system  of  marriage;  therefore  St.  Paul 
had  no  need  to  remind  them  of  this  important 
duty. 

The  Apostle  Peter  shows  the  same  tender 
regard  for  the  purity  and  peacefulness  of  the 
home  affections  as  was  manifested  by  his  brother 
Apostle.  It  is  not  uncontrolled  passion,  not  lust, 
but  the  true,  chaste,  devoted,  conjugal  love,  that, 
next  to  the  love  of  God,  is  the  holiest  desire 
and  most  elevating  emotion  human  hearts  can 
feel. 

This  blessed  love  makes  the  true  wife  will- 
ingly submissive  to  her  husband,  whom  she 

19* 


222 


THE  APOSTLES,  . 


deliglits  to  consider  worthy  of  her  reverence ; 
she  thus  wins  him  by  her  "chaste  conversation" 
to  embrace  the  true  faith,  even  when  he  may 
have  resisted  every  other  Means  of  Grace. 

And  the  true  husband  is  to  give  "honor  unto 
the  wife  as  unto  the  weaker  vessel,  and  as  being 
heirs  together  of  the  grace  of  life ;  that  your 
prayers  be  not  hindered."  —  1  Peter  iii.  7. 

Is  it  possible  that  this  "  honor  unto  the  wife" 
by  her  husband,  and  this  "  chaste  conversation  " 
of  the  wife  with  her  husband,  could  occur  in  the 
family  of  a  polygamist  —  say,  for  example,  that 
of  Brighara  Young  ? 

The  examination  of  these  questions,  shows  us 
the  reason  why  nien,  who  live  in  this  sin,  hate 
Divine  truth,  and  why  those  who  openly  em- 
body, in  their  code  of  law  or  religion,  customs 
forbidden  by  God's  law,  must  reject  the  Bible, 
must  devise  a  scheme  of  false  doctrine,  based  ou 
lying  legends,  to  sustain  their  systems  of  teach- 
ing and  of  conduct. 

That  the  "  Word  of  God  "  does  not  allow  po- 
lygamy or  licentiousness  is  made  sure  by  this  — 
all  men  who  o])enly  uphold  and  practice  these 
sins  reject  the  Bible. 

"  What  concord  hath  Christ  with  Belial  ?  " 


THE  APOSTLES. 


223 


The  history  of  the  human  race  begins  with 
conjugal  love;  holy,  pure,  chaste,  conjugal  love. 
It  is  the  grand  diapason  of  humanity.  Every 
perfect  chord  of  man's  strong  heart,  every  soft 
impulse  of  woman's  finer  nature,  responds  to  the 
Divine  Harp  that  sings  of  "  two  made  one,"  in 
this  indissoluble,  this  rapturous  union. 

Marriage,  as  God  ordained  it,  confers  on  man 
the  best  happiness  of  this  life ;  it  does  infinitely 
more ;  it  purifies  his  passions  and  exalts  his  soul 
in  unison  with  the  worship  of  the  true  God. 

When  thus  sanctified,  it  is  the  type  of  Christ 
and  the  Church,  such  as  the  beloved  Apostle 
John  beheld  and  described  as  the  "  New  Jeru- 
salem, coming  down  from  God  out  of  heaven, 
prepared  as  a  bride  adorned  for  her  husband." 
— Revelation  xxi.  2. 

And  the  Angel  said,  "  Come  hither,  I  will  shew 
thee  the  bride,  the  Lamb's  wife." — Revelation 
xxi.  9. 

Was  there  more  than  one  Church?  —  than 
one  wife  for  the  Lamb  ? 

Would  those  men,  who  accuse  God  of  sanc- 
tioning or  tolerating  more  wives  than  one  in 
marriage,  be  willing  to  carry  out  their  idea  by 
the  denial  of  truth  in  this  similitude  ? 


224 


THE  APOSTLES. 


Will  tbey  presume,  in  the  liglit  of  tliis  holy 
type  of  true  conjugal  union,  to  call  Abraham's 
concubinage  right,  or  Jacob's  connection  with 
other  than  Leah  marriage,  or  David's  twenty 
women  his  lawful  wives  ? 

As  the  Book  of  Genesis  opens  human  history 
■with  the  marriage  of  the  first  pair  in  their  inno- 
cence and  happiness,  the  true  type  of  the  true 
Church,  or  rather  the  Church  itself  then  first 
ordained ;  so  the  last  Book,  the  Divine  "  Reve- 
lation," in  closing  the  history  of  man  on  earth, 
shows  the  holiness  of  marriage  in  the  loftiest 
and  loveliest  image  which  the  human  mind  can 
reach  and  the  human  heart  understand,  as  it 
shadows  forth  the  love  of  God  to  our  sinful  race 
in  that  wonderful  metaphor,  —  "  The  Bride,  the 
Lamb's  wife ! " 


CHAPTER  XV. 


THE  GEEAT  QUESTION. 

THUS  have  I,  my  fellow-citizens,  gone  rapidly- 
over  the  Holy  Book,  seeking  with  earnest 
endeavor  to  place  its  truth,  as  regards  marriage, 
before  you. 

The  time  of  trial  is  approaching  when  each 
man,  in  our  United  States,  must  take  his  stand 
on  the  side  of  upholding  Monogamy,  or  of  allow- 
ing or  tolerating  Polygamy.  It  is  not  a  subject 
that  can  be  shirked  or  long  postponed. 

Are  you  ready  for  the  question  ? 

In  order  to  fight  this  battle  bravely,  it  is  ne- 
cessary to  know  the  ground  we  stand  upon,  and 
the  weapons  of  our  warfare. 

Have  we,  who  contend  for  the  sacredness  of 
the  marriage  contract,  as  the  Bible  sets  it  forth 
in  Genesis  —  one  man  with  one  woman,  —  have 
we  God's  Word,  throughout  the  Bible,  on  our 
side? 

"We  have  the  law  of  Nature.    Figures,  that 

225 


226 


THE   GEEAT  QUESTION. 


cannot  lie,  show  us  the  equality,  in  numbers,  of 
the  sexes,  continuously. 

We  have  the  rule  of  Historical  experience. 
Polygamy  wherever  established  is  a  curse,  and 
not  a  blessing  to  humanity. 

But  have  we  the  Bible  testimony,  unequivocal 
and  sure,  on  our  side  ? 

-  Theological  interpreters  say  No !  The  Chris- 
tian priesthood  says  No!  The  Mormons  in 
Utah  say  No !  I  appeal  to  the  people  of  the 
United  States. 

The  idea,  that  the  God  of  righteousness  re- 
vealed in  the  Bible,  ever  sanctioned  or  tolerated 
a  course  of  conduct  in  his  chosen  servants  that 
was  diametrically  opposed  to  His  own  Law  of 
Nature,  and  therefore  must  ever  be  and  ever 
have  been  disastrous  to  mankind,  is  so  mon- 
strous, that  it  seems  sinful  even  to  state  it. 

Is  not  the  Universe  u^jheld  by  Law  ?  Could 
the  Almighty  sustain  what  He  created,  except  by 
His  ordained  law — just,  righteous,  immutable 
law  ?  It  is  the  foundation  of  His  throne.  He 
could  not  act  unrighteously,  that  is,  contrary  to 
His  own  law,  and  be  the  good  God.  Should  He 
do  this,  He  would  be  the  Disturber,  the  power 
of  Evil. 


THE   GREAT  QUESTION. 


227 


God's  law  of  Creation  assigns  one  man  and 
one  woman  to  live  together  in  that  union  which 
He  has  created  men  and  women  to  desire,  as 
their  best  state  of  earthly  happiness. 

God  has  kept  this  law  of  Monogamy  in  per- 
petual force  since  the  creation,  by  keeping  the 
sexes  equal  in  numbers.* 

He  could  not  tolerate,  that  is  allow,  with- 
out punishment,  any  one  man  to  have  "  two  or 

*  The  following  statistics  of  population  I  take  from  a  news- 
paper of  18G9 : 

"  The  Secretary  of  State  of  Michigan  has  recently  published 
a  very  interesting  report  on  the  vitality  statistics  of  that 
State  for  that  portion  of  the  year  1868  between  April  5  and 
December  31 .  From  this  report  we  learn  that  during  the  period 
mentioned  there  were  19,171  births,  of  whom  10,133  were 
males." 

This  would  leave  9,038  females — being  1,095  less  than  the 
number  of  boys,  or  about  one  hundred  boys  to  ninety-one  girls. 

The  usual  rate  of  excess  in  the  number  of  boys  settled  by 
the  vitality  statistics  of  the  Old  World  is  100  boys  to  94  girls. 

Our  New  World  shows  in  the  report  from  Michigan  a  higher 
rate  of  increase  in  the  males.  The  census  of  the  United  States 
for  1870  will  settle  this  important  question  for  us.  It  would 
be  well  for  our  statesmen  to  examine  this  matter  with  atten- 
tion. If  it  is  found  that  the  proportion  of  births  be  100  boys 
to  94  girls,  will  not  this  rate  of  excess  confirm  the  Bible  law 
of  Marriage  —  one  man  for  one  woman,  the  excess  being  re- 
quired by  the  law  of  nature  to  meet  the  dangers  and  diseases 
to  which  the  man  is  more  especially  exposed  ? 

We  must  also  take  into  account  the  stream  of  emigration 
now  pouring  over  our  land,  the  far  greater  number  of  emigrants 
being  men.  The  census  will  probably  show  us  that  heathen 
devices  to  absorb  women  in  polygamy  can  never  be  allowed  in 
our  country.  The  United  States  of  North  America  must  be  the 
land  of  Christian  Homes, 


228 


THE   GREAT  QUESTION. 


three  wives,"  or  any  number  over  one  at  a  time, 
without  doing  injustice,  without  violating  His 
first  and  only  law  of  marriage.  He  could  not 
sanction  polygamy  and  be  the  just  God,  hating 
iniquity  and  every  evil  work. 

Those  Clergymen  and  "  Associations  of 
Churches  "  that  have  advocated  or  allowed  this 
charge  of  coincidence  between  the  Mormons  and 
the  Bible  doctrine  of  Marriage  to  go  unrebuked, 
must  be  brought  to  the  bar  of  the  people. 

You,  my  fellow -citizens,  must  come  to  the 
rescue  of  the  Holy  Bible  from  the  false  inter- 
pretations of  its  heretofore  Guardians.  Do  you 
answer  —  the  Reverend  Clergy  should  raise 
their  banner  of  God's  Law  and  lead  the  way 
when  licentious  idolatry  is  to  be  rooted  out? 

In  Christian  Europe  such  a  course  would  no 
doubt  be  taken,  but  we  have  the  better  way.  Our 
people  are  not  the  power  behind  the  Govern- 
ment, they  are  the  power  of  the  Government. 
Let  the  American  people  will  that  Mormonism 
shall  be  put  down,  and  the  power  of  our  Chris- 
tian Clergy,  through  their  pulpits,  will  be  swift 
as  the  thunder -bolt  when  the  lightning  from 
Heaven  has  done  its  appointed  work. 

Come  up  then,  Men  of  America,  to  the  help 


THE   GEEAT  QUESTION. 


229 


of  the  Lord  against  the  mighty.  You  who  arc 
willing  to  stand  on  God's  Bible  truth,  come  and 
put  down  all  false  theological  logic  which  would 
tolerate  or  excuse  polygamy  by  pretending  to 
find  that  it  was  allowed  or  sanctioned  in  the 
Mosaic  Law. 

Search  the  Scriptures.  You  will  there  find 
that  Moses  wrote  his  laws  for  a  people  who  did 
not  recognize  the  usage  of  a  plurality  of  wives 
among  themselves  any  more  than  did  our  own 
progenitors.  We  must  read  and  interpret  the 
Mosaic  statutes  on  these  points  as  we  do  our 
own  statutes  —  namely,  that  Monogamy  was 
the  common  Law  of  the  Pilgrim  Fathers  at 
Mount  Sinai,  as  it  was  the  common  Law  of  the 
Pilgrim  Fathers  at  Plymouth  Rock. 

Search  the  Scriptures,  and  you  will  see  that 
God  is  on  our  side.  This  truth  will  make  you 
strong  to  put  down  the  open  violation  of  God's 
law  now  witnessed  within  the  borders  of  our 
land. 

Search  History,  and  you  will  find  that  no 
nation  of  freemen  ever  allowed  or  tolerated 
polygamy.  The  institution  is  death  to  civil 
liberty.  Polygamy,  if  allowed  in  Utah,  will 
vitiate  every  marriage  in  the  United  States. 

20 


230 


THE  GEEAT  QUESTION. 


"We  boast  of  our  "  inalienable  rights " ! 
What  human  right  is  so  inalienable  as  the  right 
of  every  husband  to  have  his  own  wife,  and  the 
right  of  every  wife  to  have  her  own  husband? 
If  Mormonism  prevails,  many  a  man  will  be 
unable  to  have  one  wife,  and  every  wife  in  our 
land  will  be  liable  to  the  monstrous  wrong  of 
finding,  while  she  lives,  her  husband's  name  and 
affections  transferred  to  another  wife. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  allows 
every  man  to  enjoy,  unmolested,  his  own  religion ; 
but  it  does  not  allow  him,  under  the  cloak  of 
that  religion,  to  deprive  another  man  of  life, 
liberty,  property,  good  name,  or  domestic  hap- 
piness. 

Would  the  Car  of  Juggernaut,  or  the  Suttee 
of  the  Brahmin,  be  allowed  in  our  land  ? 

Could  a  community  that  sanctified  or  allowed 
by  their  religion.  Murder,  Theft,  and  False  Wit- 
ness, be  admitted  as  a  Republican  State  into  our 
Confederacy  ? 

Would  such  a  community  of  men,  established 
in  any  Territory,  be  allowed  to  organize  and 
carry  out  their  devilish  devices  ? 

Why  then  should  it  be  pretended  that  polyg- 
amy, which  annihilates  the  dearest  domestic 


THE   GREAT  QUESTION.  231 

and  individual  riglits  of  every  woman  subject  to 
its  rule,  which  murders  the  innocence  of  chil- 
dren and  destroys  the  balance  of  equality  among 
men,  can,  by  the  fiction  that  it  is  a  religious  in- 
stitution, be  legally  established  within  the  juris- 
diction of  the  United  States  ? 

Such  a  pretence,  when  brought  to  the  scru- 
tiny of  reason,  of  natural  justice,  of  Revealed 
Truth,  and  of  our  Federal  Constitution,  cannot 
stand  for  a  moment. 

"  We  the  people  of  the  United  States,"  must, 
in  earnest,  take  up  this  matter.  We  are  equal 
to  the  task.  We  are  the  rulers.  Let  our  reli- 
gious teachers  the  Clergy  know,  let  our  public 
servants  of  the  Government  know,  that  we  will 
not  endure  this  injustice,  this  shame,  this  sin  of 
polygamy  on  American  soil. 

Every  year  its  strength  and  boldness  in- 
creases. It  hunts  out  its  victims  on  foreign 
shores,  and  there,  like  the  creeping  voracious 
Boa,  it  swallows  its  living  prey ;  and,  return- 
ing hither,  disgorges  it,  moulded  by  its  foul, 
slimy  touch,  to  its  own  serpent  form  and 
nature. 

It  thus  pollutes  our  fair  land,  kept  open 
for  the  oppressed  and  unfortunate,  for  the 


232 


THE   GREAT  QUESTION. 


brave  in  enterprise  and  the  lover  of  free  institu- 
tions. 

The  Mormons  in  Utah  now  number  about  a 
hundred  thousand  people.  Many  of  their  most 
influential  men  —  Missionaries  they  style  them- 
selves —  have  been  sent  out  to  the  Old  World  to 
gain  proselytes. 

In  a  few  more  years,  if  allowed  to  go  on  un- 
restrained in  their  polygamy,  they  will  prove  a 
dangerous  foe  to  deal  with  :  and,  although  I  have 
no  fears  for  the  final  result  of  the  struggle,  come 
when  it  may,  yet  the  longer  it  is  delayed  the 
worse  it  will  be  for  us. 

Why  wait  till  war  actually  comes?  —  till  the 
blood  of  our  sons  has  freshened  the  shores  of  the 
Salt  Lake,  and  the  bones  of  our  brothers  are 
whitening  the  dark  deserts  of  Utah  ? 

Let  us  begin  now  at  the  ballot-boxes.  Choose 
no  man  for  an  ofiice  in  the  National  or  State 
Government  who  upholds  the  Mormon  doe- 
trine,  or  who  would  permit  polygamy  in  a 
State  or  Territory,  under  any  pretence  what- 
ever. 

See  to  it  that  each  State  Legislature  enacts 
laws  to  prevent  the  Mormon  leaders,  who  have 
gone  out  to  Europe,  from  bringing  their  foul 


THE  GEEAT  QUESTION.  .  233 

cargoes  to  our  shores.  Send  back  those  deluded 
hordes  to  their  own  countries.  Why  shoukl  the 
moral  lazar-houses  of  Europe  be  emptied  on  our 
land  ?  Why  should  these  mad,  misguided  men 
be  permitted  to  come  here,  and,  because  they  are 
together,  put  into  usage  and  common  practice 
crimes  against  the  laws  of  every  State  in  the 
Union  ? 

Has  not  this  Mormon  polygamy  already 
caused  disastrous  disturbances  on  our  borders ; 
rebellion  against  the  laws  of  the  United  States ; 
the  expense  of  millions  to  our  Government; 
exposures,  hardships,  and  destruction  of  pro- 
perty and  health,  —  and  death,  aye,  a  bloody 
death,  to  some  of  our  best  citizens? 

Are  not  these  things  sufficient  proof  that  a 
community  of  polygamists  can  never  become 
citizens  of  the  United  States?  Does  not  the 
fundamental  law  of  their  society,  the  plurality 
of  wives, -destroy  the  civil  rights  of  woman  and 
make  the  Government,  of  necessity,  oligarchi- 
cal, and  not  republican  ? 

Shall  we  wait  to  see  greater  crimes  committed 
than  the  open  licensed  adultery  of  Utah  has 
already  brought  in  its  train,  before  we  move  to 

20* 


234 


.THE  GREAT  QUESTION. 


put  down  this  rebellion  against  tlie  law  of  tlie 
Bible  and  the  law  of  our  Constitution  ? 

Shall  the  land  whose  Hero  is  Washington  be 
thus  desecrated? 

We  the  people  of  the  United  States  can  and 
must  prevent  it. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

CONCLUSION. 

"  TT^OE.  tlie  Commandment  is  a  lamp ;  and 

J-  the  law  is  light ;  and  reproofs  of  in- 
struction are  the  way  of  life." — Proverbs  vi.  23. 

"  Search  the  Scriptures  ;  for  in  them  ye  think 
ye  have  eternal  life :  and  they  are  they  which 
testify  of  me."  —  St.  John  v.  39. 

The  wisdom  of  Solomon  and  the  words  of 
Jesus  Christ  agree  in  urging  on  men  the  study 
of  God's  laws.  By  personal  study  only,  can 
their  Divine  Truth  be  clearly  apprehended,  and 
its  meaning  applied  to  individual  responsibility. 

This  little  volume  has  been  written  in  the 
earnest  hope  of  arousing  men  to  search  the 
Scriptures.  American  Protestant  Christians  are 
without  excuse  if  they  neglect  this  duty.  We 
have  the  Bible  in  our  homes.  We  have  the 
right  of  private  judgment.  We  should  exam- 
ine how  the  Bible  has  been  dealt  with  by  trans- 
lators and  by  commentators.     If  there  have 

235 


236 


CONCLUSION. 


been  errors  of  translation,  or  gross  and  vital 
mistakes  of  interpretation,  we  must  see  that  the 
sacred  Hebrew  text  is  cleared  from  these  heathen 
pollutions. 

The  work  of  reformation  for  us  is  not  merely 
sweeping  away  Mormonism !  A  far  higher  duty 
rests  on  the  American  people.  We  whose 
charter  of  civil  liberty  and  of  religious  freedom 
rests  on  God's  laws  of  Nature  and  Revelation  — 
always  in  harmony — we  must  see  to  it,  that  the 
misinterpretations  of  Scripture  which  have  given 
license  to  sins  that  degrade  mankind  and  dis- 
honor the  Creator,  shall  be  branded  as  false  and 
infamous. 

King  David's  family  life  is  the  stumbling- 
block  that  has  not  only  corrupted  the  Church, 
but  hindered  the  progress  of  Christianity.  Here 
then  is  the  battle-ground  between  Divine  wratli 
and  human  error  in  regard  to  the  Bible  Law  of 
Marriage.    The  questions  to  be  settled  are  — 

Did  the  God  of  holiness  and  justice  give 
Saul's  wives  (or  women)  to  fill  up  the  measure 
of  King  David's  lust?  Or  did  our  God,  whose 
loving  kindness  is  over  all  —  give  these  forlorn 
women  to  the  protecting  care  of  David,  that  he 
might  have  an  opportunity  of  showing  kinduass 


SUMMARY  OF  THE   ARGUMENT.  237 

to  the  family  of  liis  dead  master  ?  David  would 
thus  prove  his  own  goodness  in  strong  contrast 
with  the  evil  dealings  of  Saul  with  him. 


[  T'his  brief  synopsis  of  proofs,  found  in  the 
Bible,  sustaining  the  marriage  laws  of  the  United 
States,  may  be  useful  to  men  who  would  study 
the  subject  in  the  light  that  comes  to  us  from 
the  most  ancient  record  of  Mankind.] 

The  primal  Law  of  Marriage  was  one  Man 
with  one  Woman.  This  is  the  only  Divine  Law 
of  Marriage  set  forth  in  the  Bible. 

"  And  Adam  said.  This  is  now  bone  of  my 
bones,  and  flesh  of  my  flesh :  she  shall  be  called . 
Woman,  because  she  was  taken  out  of  Man. 

*'  Therefore  shall  a  man  leave  his  father  and 
his  mother,  and  shall  cleave  unto  his  wife ;  and 
they  shall  be  one  flesh."  —  Genesis  ii.  23,  24. 

"  And  did  not  He  make  one  ?  Yet  had  He 
the  residue  of  the  spirit.  And  wherefore  one  ? 
That  He  might  seek  a  godly  seed.  Therefore 
take  heed  to  your  spirit,  and  let  none  deal 
treacherously  against  the  wife  of  his  youth."  — 
Malachi  ii.  15. 

"  And  He  (Jesus)  answered  and  said  unto 


238       SUMMARY  OF   THE  ARGUMENT. 

them,  Have  ye  not  read,  that  He  -which  made 
them  at  the  beginning  made  them  male  and 
female,  and  said,  For  this  cause  shall  a  man 
leave  father  and  mother  and  shall  cleave  to  his 
■wife :  and  they  twain  shall  be  one  flesh."  — 
Matthew  xix.  4,  5. 

"  For  this  cause  shall  a  man  leave  his  father 
and  mother,  and  shall  be  joined  unto  his  wife, 
and  they  two  shall  be  one  flesh." — Ephesiam 
V.  31. 

Here  are  four  witnesses  to  the  Bible  Law  of 
Marriage. 

1st.  Moses,  God's  chosen  lawgiver. 

2d.  Malaclii,  God's  prophet,  the  last  sent  to 
the  people  of  Israel. 

3d.  Jesus  Christ,  our  Lord  and  Saviour. 

4th.  St.  Paul,  God's  chosen  Ajiostle  to  the 
Gentiles. 

This  primal  Law  of  Marriage  was  universal, 
binding  on  all  men  and  women  to  the  end  of  time. 

The  violation  of  this  Law  was  sin,  under  the 
Old  Testament  dispensation,  as  surely  as  it  is  sin 
under  the  Gospel. 

The  violation  of  this  Law  was  and  is  as 
surely  sin  in  man  as  in  woman ;  God  in  His 
Moral  Laws  makes  no  distinctions  between  the 
sexes. 


SUMMARY  OF   THE  ARGUMENT.  239 

The  violation  of  this  primal  Law  of  Marriage 
was  and  is  Adultery.  The  peoj)le  of  Israel  thus 
understood  the  Law  of  Sinai. 

Abraham,  Jacob,  David,  and  Solomdh  were 
guilty  of  sin  in  violating  this  Law,  and  were 
punished  for  the  sin. 

Polygamy  is  Adultery. 

Those  men  who  practice  polygamy  are  rebels 
against  God's  Law  of  Marriage,  as  revealed  in 
the  Bible  and  sustained  by  His  Law  of  Nature 
regulating  the  increase  of  the  sexes. 

Those  Theologians  who  would  excuse  the 
polygamists  of  the  Old  Testament  by  pretend- 
ing that  Jehovah  tolerated  or  sanctioned  such 
usages  in  the  men  of  His  chosen  race,  are  guilty 
of  dishonoring  God,  of  falsifying  the  Bible,  of 
pandering  to  the  lusts  of  men,  of  destroying 
the  purity  and  happiness  of  women,  and  of 
letting  in  the  flood  of  corruptions  that  have 
brought  low  the  Protestant  churches  of  Europe, 
and  greatly  hindered  the  progress  of  true  reli- 
gion in  the  United  States. 

Polygamy  is  a  violation  of  our  civil  rights  as 
citizens ;  a  violation  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  must  be  suppressed. 


